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, the term "proprietary" is now a
> well-established 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
> 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.
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