begin oe_protect.scr
Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> "Commercial" is not the opposite of Free-Libre / Open Source Software (FLOSS)
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| When I talk with with other people about Free-Libre / Open Source
>| Software (FLOSS), I still hear a lot of people mistakenly use the
>| term "commercial software" as if it had the opposite meaning of FLOSS
>| (aka open source software, Free-Libre Software, or OSS/FS). That's in
>| spite of (1) the rise in commercial development and support for FLOSS,
>| (2) most FLOSS projects' goal to incorporate improvements, which are
>| actually a form of financial gain, (3) official definitions of
>| "commercial item" that include FLOSS, and (4) FLOSS licenses and
>| projects that clearly approve of commercial support. Terms like
>| "proprietary software" or "closed source" are plausible antonyms of
>| FLOSS, but "commercial" is absurd as an antonym.
> `----
>
> http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/commercial-floss.html
Proprietary would be the opposite of floss, I think, at least as far as
a reasonable definition can be made. Commercial is an orthogonal
concept.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
You will gain money by an immoral action.
|
|
