Commercial Software (was: Re: Nokia spreading FUD?)
idra at samba.org
Tue Mar 15 14:16:35 UTC 2011
On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 14:04 +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 09:36 -0400, simo wrote:
> > Given RHEL is offered only after
> > payment, would you say it is not commercial ? Or do you claim it is not
> > Free Software ?
> Given I have already stated my opinion on both those questions, twice
> now, I can only conclude that you haven't actually read my contributions
> to this thread.
> It doesn't seem worthwhile to discuss this, because you a) don't know my
> definition [because you didn't read it], and b) are asking me to defend
> points of view I don't hold [hence the false dichotomy above].
> Again, for the record; Yes, I do say RHEL is commercial. No, I do not
> claim it is not free software.
the question was rhetoric and only meant to stress that "commercial
software" is not an antonym to "free software", therefore discussing in
those terms is pointless, and for a free software activist even harmful.
It isn't worthwhile to discuss because the discussion is pointless, as
Jelle pointed out.
That was my point :)
Have a nice day.
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer <simo at samba.org>
Principal Software Engineer at Red Hat, Inc. <simo at redhat.com>
More information about the Discussion