Re: prozilla: Nonfree
Brian Nelson <pyro@debian.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:54:29AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:46:51AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > > Bullshit. There's no requirement whatsoever that a source file may be
> > > used at all "commercially", assuming the common definition of
> > > "commercial" == "closed source".
> > Such a definition is wrong, and will not appear in any dictionary entry for
> > that word.
> Wrong? Well http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Commercial-HOWTO.html uses the
> term to mean exactly that. Certainly other meanings could be derived,
> but I think my definition is the most common in the context it was used.
Can you be more specific with the reference, please? That's
a large document and section 5 seems to contradict your
claim anyway.
Also, I suggest avoiding the word "common". We have no decent
data available to judge how frequently-used that synonym is
and the definition is clearly not held "in common".
By the way: I am a commercial user of GPL'd code. Enjoy.
> [...] I can only find it currently in 2 packages in
> Debian--prozilla and elinks. The others that used it in the past
> (libcurl, wget?) likely rewrote the code since it was obsolete anyway.
> Why not just take the code from one of those if it's really a concern?
That seems like a good suggestion. Can you tell which parts
replaced it?
Reply to: