The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
This makes the license transitive so that derived works are also MIT licensed.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License?wprov=sfti1#Licens...
AGPL and GPL are, on the other hand, as you describe.
You also could not legally remove the MIT license from those files and distribute with all rights reserved. My original granting of permission to modify and redistribute continues downstream.
*: which unfortunately most users of MIT libraries do not follow as I often have an extremely difficult time finding the OSS licenses in their software distributions
On the contrary: https://opensource.org/osd
Need more of a citation to understand that..?
> Need more of a citation to understand that..?
This nonsense is not at all relevant to the claim for which I asked for a citation: "No, the original definition of open-source is source code that is visible (open) to the public."
No support for that claim has ever been offered.
Words have meaning and all that.
* If a country doesn't have "closed borders" then many foreigners can visit if they follow certain rules around visas, purpose, and length of stay. If instead anyone can enter and live there with minimal restrictions we say it has "open borders".
* If a journal isn't "closed access" it is free to read. If you additionally have permissions to redistribute, reuse, etc then it's "open access".
* If an organization doesn't practice "closed meetings" then outsiders can attend meetings to observe. If it additionally provides advance notice, allows public attendance without permission, and records or publishes minutes, then it has “open meetings.”
* A club that doesn't have "closed membership" is open to admitting members. Anyone can join provided they meet relevant criteria (if any) then it's "open membership".
EDIT: expanded this into a post: https://www.jefftk.com/p/open-source-is-a-normal-term
* A set that is open can also be closed.
And that has nothing to do with whether someone can be "blamed" for ignoring the actual meaning of a term with a formal definition.
Bad person will be henceforth ignored.
P.S. Oh, this is the person who claimed that "No, the original definition of open-source is source code that is visible (open) to the public" and when asked for a citation went on the attack.
> I didn't give any sort of definition of antonym
Oh I'm sorry, what is your definition of antonym? I thought I could understand it from your earlier assertion where you used your definition, but I guess I should have asked you what your definition is first. Pardon me for assuming you wanted your earlier statement to be understood as-is, and not require supplementary info. So yeah. I'm waiting. Or you can stop being a weasel liar that isn't even very good at it.
Also I'm sorry I "went on the attack" but hey, I thought you'd enjoy that since it's all you do here.
His claim is itself of course more bad faith, and his entire comment is extreme bad faith -- "weasel liar"? "all you do here"? Irrelevant demands for a definition that everyone already knows? It's bad faith all the way down. Oh well, some people are irredeemably awful.
Typical of the sort of comment that irredeemably awful people make. At no point did I say anything that can be rationally construed as being at odds with the dictionary definition of "antonym". This troll trash implied that I had without any basis, when all I said is that "closed source" can be arbitrarily defined as being the antonym of "open source" -- which is a tautology, independent of the actual meaning of "antonym" (but clearly consistent with it).
Ironic put down when “open source” consists of two words which have meaning, but somehow doesn’t mean that when combined into one phrase.
Same with free software, in a way.
Programmers really are terrible at naming things.
:)
The fact is that your claim "“open source” consists of two words which have meaning, but somehow doesn’t mean ==>that<== when combined into one phrase" is simply false, as there is no "that".
> Same with free software, in a way.
This is a much more supportable argument, but note the change in wording: "free software" is not the same as "free source". The latter suggests that one doesn't have to pay for the source, but says nothing about what one can do with the source or one's rights to software built from that source.
As for "free [as in freedom] software", I think there would have been less contention if RMS/FSF had called it "freed software" or "liberated software", and it would have been more consistent with their stated goals.
> Programmers really are terrible at naming things.
This is silly sophism based on one anecdote that you didn't even get right. Naming things well is hard, and names in software have conditions that don't exist in more casual circumstances. The reality is that good programmers put a lot of effort into choosing names and generally are better at it than the population at large.
You're welcome to think what you want, but I've had to explain to enough juniors enough times what "open" actually means, so I know what people without any preconceived notions think it means, vs what experts on HN associate with the word after decades in the industry.
People who are new to the profession entirely, think that "open" means "you can look inside." Source: my life, unfortunately.
> ... that you didn't even get right.
FYI: this style of conversation won't get anyone to listen to you. And FWIW I was referencing the quip which I'm sure your familiar with. It was tongue in cheek.
> The reality is that good programmers put a lot of effort into choosing names and generally are better at it than the population at large.
... isn't that a No True Scotsman?
How big of you.
> I've had to explain to enough juniors enough times what "open" actually means, so I know what people without any preconceived notions think it means, vs what experts on HN associate with the word after decades in the industry.
This is not relevant--it addresses a strawman and deflects from the actual claim you made and that I disputed.
> FYI: this style of conversation won't get anyone to listen to you.
Projection. I will in fact cease to respond to you.
> ... isn't that a No True Scotsman?
Obviously not. Failing to understand the difference between "real", "actual", "true" etc. which are the essence of the fallacy and valid qualifiers like "good" shows a fundamental failure to understand the point of the fallacy.