Re: prozilla: Nonfree
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 08:39:30PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:30:52AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > Wrong? Well http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Commercial-HOWTO.html uses the
> > term to mean exactly that.
>
> I can't see (from a quick sampling of the items in there) that any of the
> items in that list are free, lock-in software. Could you point them out to
> me?
Er, not sure what you mean by that.
> > Certainly other meanings could be derived, but I think my definition is
> > the most common in the context it was used.
>
> It hasn't been for several years, and it is confusing to refer to lock-in
> "proprietary" software as "commercial", as the two terms are very close to
> orthogonal.
I agree. However, the file in question is dated from 1997, back when
"commercial" and "proprietary" were used interchangeably when referring
to software.
Really, how useful is a 414 LOC "library" to parse ftp LIST output from
1997 anyway? Instead of arguing over it, why not just replace it with
something more up-to-date?
--
Society is never going to make any progress until we all learn to
pretend to like each other.
Reply to: