[Oberon] Introduce myself (on "public domain")

[John R. Strohm]

Colby, Liam's language is correct, as far as it goes.

There are three (3) categories, besides proprietary/closed source.

1.  Free Software, as mentioned by Liam and defined by the Free Software Foundation.  Requires redistribution of source changes if changed binaries are redistributed.

2.  Public domain

3.  "Open Source", as mentioned by you and "defined" by various people.  Somewhere in there, but different licenses have different rules.

You really should familiarize yourself with the Free Software body of knowledge, and WHY Stallman et al insisted on doing it the way they did.  You also should look at why the various people pushing "Open Source" and denigrating "Free Software" are doing that.

--- oberon at x.colbyrussell.com wrote:

From: <oberon at x.colbyrussell.com>
To: <fp at vonck.nl>, ETH Oberon and related systems <oberon at lists.inf.ethz.ch>
Subject: Re: [Oberon] Introduce myself (on "public domain")
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 08:18:44 -0600

If we're pursuing sticklerism wrt proper language use...

On 2/22/19 6:01 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
 > Free Software means that they must share the source with their
 > modifications as well, which is a far more powerful idea.

That's still off.  You're describing copyleft or "reciprocal" licensing.
Permissive licenses like Apache 2.0 or those used for most BSD projects
nowadays are also free software licenses, but they don't require
reciprocity--you're allowed to make changes and publish the results
*without* sharing the changes you made to the underlying source.

-- 
Colby Russell

--
Oberon at lists.inf.ethz.ch mailing list for ETH Oberon and related systems
https://lists.inf.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/oberon