[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 Sun, 27 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
> 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).

And no, it's not a well-established word in that regard. Like many
terms in the Copyright/Trademark/Patent rights space, it gets missused
by people who are not familiar with it and haven't bothered to consult
a dictionary.

> Free == grants all the important freedoms (see the FSD or the DFSG)
> Proprietary == non-free

If you mean non-free, just say non-free. Don't use confusing terms
like proprietary, which belongs on the closed/open axis, not the
free/non-free axis. Non-free is even shorter that proprietary, so your
fingers will thank you.

Don Armstrong

Build a fire for a man, an he'll be warm for a day.  Set a man on   
fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
 -- Jules Bean

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Reply to: