Commercial Software (was: Re: Nokia spreading FUD?)

Michael Kesper mkesper at
Wed Mar 16 11:02:48 UTC 2011

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 03:09:43PM +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
> I don't need protection from words, thanks, and I don't think using
> words which are in common parlance is particularly dangerous or
> harmful. 

Words can be very harmful, even though they're used in "common parlance".
Think about that conglomerate of different subjects thrown together as
"intellectual property".

> What is harmful, though, is attempting to portray people as siding on
> one side when they're actually on the other. It's divisive.

I see a real and great danger in the classification of software as
"commercial" as every time I saw this phrase used, it was used to sell
proprietary licences as "licences for commercial use".
By the repeated use of phrases like that, the impression is built that
commercial use is not possible with Free Software licences.
So it _is_ harmful to try to classify software as "commercial" or not.

Best wishes
Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) []   (
Treten Sie der Fellowship bei!       [][][] (
Ihre Spende ermöglicht unsere Arbeit!  ||   (
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 316 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the Discussion mailing list