Re: commercial code Vs Commercial software
Well, there is a pseudo package called `www.debian.org'. It is like a
"hidden" feature, I don't remember anywhere mentioning it. In
<https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?package=www.debian.org>,
you can see all the bug reports filed against it. Debian Wiki has a
page on how to report bug <https://wiki.debian.org/HowtoUseBTS>. If
you want to report it yourself, then I will leave it to you.
Cheers,
Alex
On 28/10/2015, Mehrdad Linux <mehrdadlinux@gmail.com> wrote:
> really thanks
>
> end of article write
>
> To report a problem with the web site, e-mail debian-www@lists.debian.org.
>
> and you are only person answer me
>
> how can i report a bug ?
> thanks :D
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 7:11 PM, Alex Vong <alexvong1995@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Yes, I think it is a bug. Have you already sent a bug report? If not,
>> I will send it when I have time. (Maybe on weekend)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Alex
>>
>> On 28/10/2015, Mehrdad Linux <mehrdadlinux@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > OK it is very good thanks
>> >
>> > 1 : you accepted free software can be commercial software
>> > 2 : you seed commercial code is code of commercial software
>> > 3 : free software is kind of software have Four Freedoms
>> > (run,study,redistribute,improve)
>> >
>> > OK
>> >
>> > look at this link
>> >
>> > in Debian web site
>> > https://www.Debian.org/intro/free.en.html
>> >
>> > we have article titled
>> > What Does Free Mean? or What do you mean by Free Software?
>> >
>> > in paragraph 6 part 3
>> >
>> > write
>> > "
>> >
>> >> Distribution of source code. One of the problems with most commercial
>> >> code
>> >> is that you can't fix bugs or customize it since the source code is
>> >> not
>> >> available. Also, the company may decide to stop supporting the
>> >> hardware
>> >> you
>> >> use. Many free licenses force the distribution of the source code.
>> >> This
>> >> protects the user by allowing them to customize the software for their
>> >> needs.
>> >>
>> > "
>> >
>> > i think it must be fix it is wrong “free software” is a matter of
>> liberty,
>> > not price
>> >
>> > why it write commercial code is that you can't fix bugs?
>> > why it write source code is not available?
>> >
>> > i thinks it must be fix and it is wrong
>> >
>> >
>> > thanks for your answers
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Alex Vong <alexvong1995@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I see what you mean now, thanks for clarification! IMO, commercial
>> >> code is simply code of commercial software. Free code and proprietary
>> >> code can be defined similarly as well. I am showing an counter example
>> >> that RHEL is "made up" of commercial code but is free software at the
>> >> same time. Does this answer your question?
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> Alex
>> >>
>> >> On 27/10/2015, Mehrdad Linux <mehrdadlinux@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > thanks for your answer
>> >> > maybe you don't read my email :D
>> >> > look at title
>> >> > read this paragraph carefully
>> >> >
>> >> > Distribution of source code. One of the problems with most
>> >> > commercial
>> >> code
>> >> > is that you can't fix bugs or customize it since the source code is
>> not
>> >> > available. Also, the company may decide to stop supporting the
>> hardware
>> >> you
>> >> > use. Many free licenses force the distribution of the source code.
>> This
>> >> > protects the user by allowing them to customize the software for
>> >> > their
>> >> > needs.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > RHEL source code are available and you can fix the bug and .....
>> >> >
>> >> > i know free software can be Commercial software but what is the
>> >> commercial
>> >> > code?
>> >> >
>> >> > why commercial code can't fix bugs or customize it since the source
>> >> > code
>> >> is
>> >> > not available
>> >> >
>> >> > my question is what is difference between
>> >> > 1 : commercial code
>> >> > 2 : Commercial software
>> >> > 3 : proprietary software
>> >> >
>> >> > i know difference of Commercial software proprietary software my
>> >> > question
>> >> > is what is commercial code?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
Reply to: