sam at liddicott.com
Tue Mar 15 11:08:10 UTC 2011
On 15/03/11 11:03, Hugo Roy wrote:
> From what I can read, we cannot reach a definition of "commercial
> software" or "non commercial software" that isn't self referring (as in:
> all software is "commercial" unless forbidden, for instance with a non
> commercial license: which is a bad idea btw).
> You may agree or not. But anyway: what's the point?
> Does it disturb you that we may call all Free Software "commercial"
> software? Why? Isn't it a good thing that people are free to make money
> out of it? What's negative about "commercial"? As long as we stand for
> our freedoms, this should include the freedom to business, right?
> On the other hand, if you push for a definition of commercial software
> that may exclude most Free Software, you see where you're going: you're
> not doing a favour to people's freedom, because you exclude Free
> Software from the marketplace.
If we learn from the weasels we need terms like commercial software that
can mean what we like; that can include free software after the
discussion is closed and the EU recommendations have been adopted.
More information about the Discussion