[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: prozilla: Nonfree

Brian Nelson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:16:21AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>Justin Pryzby wrote:
>>>ftpparse.c heading:
>>>	Commercial use is fine, if you let me know what programs
>>>	you're using this in.
>>>Which I believes fails the desert-island test?  Legal, can you
>>Confirmed; requirements to notify the author are non-free.
> Bullshit.  There's no requirement whatsoever that a source file may be
> used at all "commercially", assuming the common definition of
> "commercial" == "closed source".

First of all, that's not a common definition; even if it were, it is not
a correct one.  "commercial" means "related to commerce";
proprietary/closed-source programs need not be involved in commerce, and
commercial programs need not be proprietary/closed-source.

Second, there is certainly no requirement that a source file may be used
in closed-source software; however, I seriously doubt that that is what
this license is referring to.  "commercial" (or more commonly
"non-commercial") in licenses refers almost exclusively to money-making
purposes; I have never seen a license that used "commercial" to mean

Finally, even if we were to assume that it is possible the license means
what you suggest (that the only type of use for which notification is
required is proprietary use), then due to the multiple possible meanings
of "commercial", the license is ambiguous at best, and therefore we need

- Josh Triplett

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: