Date: 20 Dec 2001 14:00:37 -0800 From: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: Jeremy Karlson <karlj000@unbc.ca>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GPL nonsense: time to stop Message-ID: <0dn10dwnzu.10d@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20011220065451.02653af0@localhost> References: <b2itb2y1nh.tb2@localhost.localdomain> <4.3.2.7.2.20011220065451.02653af0@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> writes: > At 03:00 AM 12/20/2001, Jeremy Karlson wrote: > > >Okay, "proprietary" is perhaps not a good word, but I still can't think of > >a better one. "Closed" is almost always the appropriate word when I see "proprietary" misused. Actually, your "do something proprietary" is OK as far as I can tell, which is why I didn't criticize it directly and used it myself. I suppose someone can do something "like proprietors/owners characteristically do" or something like that. The little lecture was just to note that the word doesn't mean "closed" or "non-GPL". > Try "commercial." GPLed software cannot be commercial, because it > cannot be the object of commerce. Yes, you can sell a disc with > the software ON it for money, but you cannot license the software > ITSELF for money. But everyone uses "software" as an ambiguous synonym for both an intangible "software work" and a tangible "software copy", and you may sell copies in commerce. Actually, you can sell the work too, and I suppose that some dot-goners have done that, but I'm not sure that qualifies as commerce. Also, you can license GPL software in return for cross-licensing fees in the form of valuable intellectual property rights from derivers (which happens in every derivation of GPL software). 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?0dn10dwnzu.10d>