Re: Dr. Seuss, licensing, and WINE

[Brett Glass]

Plato ([e-mail]) writes:
> > Give me a break dude.  Yes, the FSF wants all software to be free and 
> > wants to rid the world of commercial software altogether.
>
> [...]
>
> I think it is worth pointing out the the Free Software Foundation does *not*
> want to rid the world of commercial software.
>
> Stallman has, however, stated that he would like to rid the world of
> *proprietary* software.

Richard Stallman most certainly does want to rid the world of all
commercial software. He says so in many of his essays.

One of Stallman's propaganda techniques, alas, has been to refer to
commercial software as "proprietary" software. He does this because
the word "proprietary" has negative connotations. He hopes to co-opt 
those connotations so as to convince others to join him in his drive 
to destroy all commercial software.

To set the record straight:

Software is "proprietary" if it does not interoperate with other software,
does not conform to industry standards, and/or uses unique file formats 
or protocols so as to lock users in or deter competition.

Software is "commercial" (that is, the object of commerce) if it is
licensed for money. GPLed software cannot be commercial because it
cannot be licensed for money (the GPL prohibits this). You can sell
a disc with GPLed software on it, but only the plastic disc is a
commercial product -- not the code it contains.

--Brett Glass

Richard Stallman

[Plato]

On Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 02:15:14PM -0700, Brett Glass wrote:
> Plato ([e-mail]) writes:
> > I think it is worth pointing out the the Free Software Foundation does *not*
> > want to rid the world of commercial software.
> >
> > Stallman has, however, stated that he would like to rid the world of
> > *proprietary* software.
>
> Richard Stallman most certainly does want to rid the world of all
> commercial software. He says so in many of his essays.

Could you give me URLs to one or more of these essays?
> Software is "proprietary" if it does not interoperate with other software,
> does not conform to industry standards, and/or uses unique file formats 
> or protocols so as to lock users in or deter competition.

That is not true.  In English, `propritetary' is an adjective used to describe
something which is the property of someone.  In the computing world it is
generally used to describe software which does not allow redistribution and
modification.

Your description could quite easily apply to a badly written piece of free
software.
> Software is "commercial" (that is, the object of commerce) if it is
> licensed for money. GPLed software cannot be commercial because it
> cannot be licensed for money (the GPL prohibits this). You can sell
> a disc with GPLed software on it, but only the plastic disc is a
> commercial product -- not the code it contains.

Again not true.  Commercial software need not be *licensed* for money, it
only need be developed or marketed as a way of business.

Did you read the links I posted?  I post them again and suggest you do so
before posting erroneous comments.  How can you hope to win an argument when
you do not understand the issues involved?

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Commercial
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/software-libre-commercial-viability.html

Plato