No, copyright law itself restricts people from sharing code. “Open Source” or “Free Software” licenses relax those restrictions. Restrictions are never added by the license, only conditions limiting when they may be relaxed.
This is exactly why copyleft licenses are now implemented within the context of intellectual property law. You can’t have a socialist biodome specifically for code.
CC-BY-SA is also not, in fact, “Open Source” because it doesn’t appear on the list of OSI-approved Open Source licenses.
Any license that prohibits modification will do. As any license that prohibits redistribution under a closed license will also do.
EDIT: “do” = to refute your statement, from which you just so vehemently distanced yourself, lmao
The rest of your word salad isn’t even worth responding to.
Now go refute my other arguments, which totally refute your fallacious statement that open source entails copyleft because Richard Stoolman wants it that way. Let’s not discuss what other things he wants his way, lol.
No.
This is exactly why copyleft licenses are now implemented within the context of intellectual property law. You can’t have a socialist biodome specifically for code.
Any license that prohibits modification will do. As any license that prohibits redistribution under a closed license will also do.
EDIT: “do” = to refute your statement, from which you just so vehemently distanced yourself, lmao
The rest of your word salad isn’t even worth responding to.
Well, my bad. I meant CC-BY-ND.
Now go refute my other arguments, which totally refute your fallacious statement that open source entails copyleft because Richard Stoolman wants it that way. Let’s not discuss what other things he wants his way, lol.
Not an open source license, so what the fuck is your point?
Your word salad isn’t coherent enough to form any sort of “argument” in the first place.