Ok, in that case your definition is inclusive of things which are not conventionally considered plagiarism. Ghostwriting is commonly looked down upon, but not considered plagiarism. A large part of a non-legalistic definition of plagiarism includes a lack of consent from the original creator; if you take a job as a ghostwriter, you agree to your writing being published under a different name. If I work as a developer for someone who wants to make their own app, say a YouTuber, and they publish the app I wrote as <YouTuber’s> app, most people would consider that perfectly normal and not plagiaristic, since the developer was paid for a service in which it was understood their work would be published under a different person’s name.
You are also avoiding the original question about BSD and MIT, and not explaining why that is plagiaristic. Do you still think they are plagiaristic? If so, how? Given that both the licensor explicitly wanted people to be able to re-use their code in proprietary software (i.e. consent/permission exists), and these licences require attribution (i.e. not only are you not taking credit for it, you are actively naming and crediting the original author).
Plagiarism is the representation of another person’s language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions as one’s own original work.
So, I’m afraid that my definition is closer to consensus than yours.
If word gets out that you used a ghostwriter, you’re gonna get in trouble for plagiarism. That’s the thing they’ll accuse you of.
While consent is a part of why plagiarism is shitty, it’s not what makes something plagiarism. You can check it the other way around: if I’m legitimately quoting someone, do I need explicit consent, or is it implied (if it’s published work)?
About the BSD stuff: yeah, it might not be illegal and consential, but both of these things aren’t necessary for plagiarism.
Ok, in that case your definition is inclusive of things which are not conventionally considered plagiarism. Ghostwriting is commonly looked down upon, but not considered plagiarism. A large part of a non-legalistic definition of plagiarism includes a lack of consent from the original creator; if you take a job as a ghostwriter, you agree to your writing being published under a different name. If I work as a developer for someone who wants to make their own app, say a YouTuber, and they publish the app I wrote as <YouTuber’s> app, most people would consider that perfectly normal and not plagiaristic, since the developer was paid for a service in which it was understood their work would be published under a different person’s name.
You are also avoiding the original question about BSD and MIT, and not explaining why that is plagiaristic. Do you still think they are plagiaristic? If so, how? Given that both the licensor explicitly wanted people to be able to re-use their code in proprietary software (i.e. consent/permission exists), and these licences require attribution (i.e. not only are you not taking credit for it, you are actively naming and crediting the original author).
Here’s the wikipedia definition
So, I’m afraid that my definition is closer to consensus than yours.
If word gets out that you used a ghostwriter, you’re gonna get in trouble for plagiarism. That’s the thing they’ll accuse you of.
While consent is a part of why plagiarism is shitty, it’s not what makes something plagiarism. You can check it the other way around: if I’m legitimately quoting someone, do I need explicit consent, or is it implied (if it’s published work)?
About the BSD stuff: yeah, it might not be illegal and consential, but both of these things aren’t necessary for plagiarism.