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