On Tue, 29 May 2007 14:12:55 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote: > On Tue, 29 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > > what's your definition of "proprietary software", then? Software > > with source code kept secret? > > Software whose use, modification, selling, or distribution is ^^^^ > controlled exclusively by a single party, generally by restricting > access to the source code and/or restrictive licencing agreements. ^^^^ Seems very close to catch *all* non-free software. Even when access to the source code is granted, if restrictive licensing agreements are in place, it's proprietary software. As soon as *one* action among use, modification, selling and distribution, is controlled exclusively by a single party, it's proprietary software. > > > Just a nit-pick, not really interchangeably, because of semi-free > > software. I am deliberately neglecting semi-free software here. > > Well, that's the root of our contention then. As proprietary software > does not encompass the entire set of non-free software, you should not > use the terms interchangeably. I simply consider semi-free software not *so* better than other non-free software. Consequently I do not insist that much on the distinction between semi-free software and the rest of non-free software: I just call it all "proprietary software", more or less interchangeably with "non-free software". But please note that the distinction you seem to have made so far is a different one: you have linked "proprietary software" with closeness and unavailability of source. The concept of semi-free software (as defined by the FSF) is instead based on "for non-profit purposes only" restrictions. -- 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:
pgpSGR8I1tE8e.pgp
Description: PGP signature