23 Jun
2004
23 Jun
'04
1:54 p.m.
Ramanraj writes:
They are not free copies and therefore, let us not
call them as free copies.
It is better to say "Distributing complimentary copies of non-free ..."
The OED defines "complimentary" as "given free of charge".
Wouldn't it be better to use the term "proprietary software" instead of
"non-free software." You wouldn't have the confusion associated with the
term "free." (Especially when the two meanings of the word occur in the same
sentence.)
"Distributing complimentary copies of proprietary software ..."
Vijay
--
______________________________________________
Check out the latest SMS services @ http://www.linuxmail.org
This allows you to send and receive SMS through your mailbox.
Powered by Outblaze
24 Jun
24 Jun
6:14 a.m.
New subject: [Fwd]:Non-free vs proprietary
Vijay Kumar Bagavath Singh wrote:
Ramanraj writes:
Strictly, free software, is also owned by its author(s), but it is
licensed to be freely used under the terms of the GPL. It is the
restrictions in the license that distinguish free from non-free
software, and hence it is more appropriate to call the software whose
licenses give no freedom to share, copy, redistribute or modify as
non-free software.
They are not free copies and therefore, let us not
call them as free copies.
It is better to say "Distributing complimentary copies of non-free ..."
The OED defines "complimentary" as "given free of charge".
Wouldn't it be better to use the term "proprietary software" instead of
"non-free software." You wouldn't have the confusion associated with the
term "free." (Especially when the two meanings of the word occur in the same
sentence.)
"Distributing complimentary copies of proprietary software ..."
6853
days inactive
6854
days old
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Ramanraj K -
Vijay Kumar Bagavath Singh