Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 23:57:52 -0700 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen), Jeremy Karlson <karlj000@unbc.ca> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GPL nonsense: time to stop Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20011219235317.00e55b00@localhost> In-Reply-To: <b2itb2y1nh.tb2@localhost.localdomain> References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0112190048271.29122-100000@ugrad.unbc.ca> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0112190048271.29122-100000@ugrad.unbc.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 09:08 PM 12/19/2001, Gary W. Swearingen wrote: >Please tell us how the GPL restricts the ability of someone to do >something "proprietary" any more than the BSD licence does (or the MIT >license, which I suppose RMS knew before creating the GPL, does)? >I don't think you can, because that isn't the point of the GPL. In this argument, and in the paragraphs that follow, methinks you are falling prey to Stallman's Humpty Dumpty-ish redefinition of the word "proprietary." The correct definition of "proprietary" is as follows: A product or protocol is proprietary when others cannot produce products that interoperate with it, are compatible with it, or are equivalent to it. What Stallman refers to as "proprietary" software is in fact commercial software. Stallman is leveraging the strong negative connotations of the word "proprietary" and also avoiding the use of the word "commercial," which would highlight the fact that he is anti-business. --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.3.2.7.2.20011219235317.00e55b00>