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

Re: help with crafting proper license header for a dual-licensing project



On Wed, 23 May 2007 22:05:54 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:

[...]
> If you use the word "proprietary", you are merely echoing the 
> terminology used/popularised by Microsoft - do you remember their 
> marketing slogan "Unix is proprietary, Windows is open"?
> 
> If you use the word "proprietary" correctly, then linux is
> proprietary.  "proprietary" means "has an owner" (which ALL
> copyrighted works do). The  opposite of "proprietary" is "Public
> Domain".

Sorry, but I have to disagree.

Whatever the its origin is[1], the term "proprietary" is now a
well-established[2] word used as opposed to "free" (as in freedom).

There are already enough people who are mistaken about the two
*orthogonal* distinctions commercial/non-commercial and
proprietary/free.
Let's not add to the confusion, please!

Free == grants all the important freedoms (see the FSD or the DFSG)
Proprietary == non-free
Commercial == is created/distributed for profit
Non-commercial == is created/distributed in a not-for-profit manner


[1] please note that I am *not* claiming that you're wrong about its
Microsoft-ish descendancy
[2] at least in the free software community

-- 
 http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html
 Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through?
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgphM2Q0URxWi.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: