831
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2024
831 points (97.9% liked)
Technology
55606 readers
2492 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
If it’s a public repo do they need permission?
Not saying this is good, but you can’t really argue that it’s not a natural consequence of open source.
I'm noticing this misconception in a lot of places.
Just because something is on GitHub, doesn't mean it's open source.
Obviously it functionally very much is. If you wanted to keep it closed source you'd host it on your own servers or even keep it offline.
Don't forget that "open source" has a different definition than "source available".
Oh I get the theoretical difference. I'm talking about functional difference. Good luck taking China to patent court.
Open source doesn't mean source available. You simply aren't using the term correctly.
No, I'm pointing out that China doesn't care about your dictionary.
If someone infringes on a copyright that doesn't mean the work isn't copyrighted. You can't just say things that are source available are open source. Even if someone is infringing on the rights holders they're still only source available.
In countries following that legal regime.
You're being obtuse. I get the point you're trying to make -- you've been heard. I'm just saying those aren't the terms you should be using to make it. Open source has a very distinct definition and it has to do with the licenses covering the code. It has nothing to do with whether different countries have differing laws. Code cannot be open source in one country and not open source in another because the definition has nothing to do with countries. In fact, that would specifically not be open source because it gives rights to some and not others.
The problem is we aren't in a thread talking about Apple stealing code. We're in a thread about China doing it. And people in here are like, "that's illegal! It's not actually open source!"
Which is why I'm driving this point so hard.
Just because it might be legal to violate copyrights in other countries doesn't make the code considered open source though lol.
It does where they're concerned.
🙄