Re: "Open Source" is vague term referring to guns, wine, spirituality, etc.

[Jean Louis]

* Valentino Giudice <valentino.giudice96@gmail.com> [2022-03-15 01:03]:
>    > That is what you say, though objectively, legally and protectively,
>    it
>    > is not the reality.
>    Legally and protectively "free software" doesn't have more meaning or
>    value than "open source". Possibly less.

That is why we use methods to protect free software. One good method
is the copyleft GNU GPL license and copyright laws. Very smart
invention by Richard Stallman.

The term "free software" as such is not meaningful unless one knows
what we are talking about. To know that one has to read free software
philosophy. 

> That said, as I mentioned, the term "open source" is used by government
> agencies. It also appears in Italian legislation (translated in
> Italian, even though developers usually say "open source", without
> translating it). The term "open source" has also been used in court
> decisions with the correct meaning in the United States, as well as at
> least one court order in Italy I am aware of (which didn't translate
> it).

Yes, and it is used wrongly. I have already demonstrated example with
NASA open source license which is proprietary. 

Term alone does not mean nothing much, also for courts. Courts want to
understand what was agreed between parties. One foundational document
that tells about agreement is a license, and not the "term" alone. 

> That said, the mere fact that it is not *illegal* to use the term "open
> source" as a synonym of "source available" doesn't mean it's
> correct.

Legal or illegal, please, I and other people can use any terms we
want. Speaking is not illegal.

Trademark usage means selling goods or services under specific
trademark. Even if you do use same trademark as other person, that
does not make it automatically trademark infringement (akin to
illegality). 

Using ANY (decent) terms in conversations is not illegal. You can
mention any trademarks you wish and want. 

Correct or not, we don't use "open" in Libreplanet or GNU system
distributions, we call it free software for reasons of freedomg.

> You made a claim that that particular piece of software is open
> source.  I said the claim is wrong. For that to be the case, "open
> source" doesn't need to be a trademark and calling that piece of
> software "open source" doesn't need to be illegal. You are moving
> the goalpost to something I never said.

For you is wrong, for author is obviously not wrong. If author calls
it open source, I let it be, but I know it is not free software.


-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

In support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/