On Saturday 28 October 2006 18:53, Philip Tellis wrote:
He's not saying that the GPL should allow proprietary software or that it's bad. All he's saying is that the GPL takes away one of the developer's freedoms.
That's not entirely correct though, at it stems from the fact that proprietary software is incorrectly named. The word proprietary means "owned or belonging to someone". All software is owned by someone (the author) unless explicitly placed in the public domain.
So, if there's anything that isn't proprietary software, it's public domain software. Everything else is proprietary, including GPLed software, BSD licenced software and restrictive EULA wrapped software.
I understood what he was trying to say. But according to Stallman creation of proprietary software was of no consequence. Hence it doesnt even count as a freedom. I am taking the historical meaning of proprietary software and not the one that you just defined.