Re: Boulder Pledge
said Alexander Hvostov (on 2003-02-09),
> On Sat, 2003-02-08 at 21:31, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > >>"Alex" == Alexander Hvostov <alex@aoi.dyndns.org> writes:
> >
> > > When did Pine become proprietary?
> >
> > Pine has always been non-free.
>
> I don't think we are using the same definition of 'proprietary'. I'm
> using the one from the Jargon File:
>
> In the language of hackers and users, inferior; implies a
> product not conforming to open-systems standards, and thus one
> that puts the customer at the mercy of a vendor who can inflate
> service and upgrade charges after the initial sale has locked
> the customer in.
>
> Pine conforms to an awful lot of open-systems standards, makes no
> attempt to lock users in (I migrated from it to another MUA fairly
> painlessly), and does not put users at the mercy of anyone who can
> inflate service and upgrade charges because it didn't cost anything to
> begin with.
>
> Just because it's non-free doesn't mean it is 'proprietary' as per this
> definition.
>
> Alex.
>
>
It does as per this definition:
$ webster proprietary
...
2. something that is used, produced, or marketed under exclusive legal
right of the inventor or maker;
...
Geordie.
Reply to: