On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:30:52AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote: > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:54:29AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:46:51AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:16:21AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > > Justin Pryzby wrote: > > > > > ftpparse.c heading: > > > > > > > > > > Commercial use is fine, if you let me know what programs > > > > > you're using this in. > > > > > > > > > > Which I believes fails the desert-island test? Legal, can you > > > > > confirm? > > > > > > > > Confirmed; requirements to notify the author are non-free. > > > > > Bullshit. There's no requirement whatsoever that a source file may be > > > used at all "commercially", assuming the common definition of > > > "commercial" == "closed source". > > > > Such a definition is wrong, and will not appear in any dictionary entry for > > that word. > > Wrong? Well http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Commercial-HOWTO.html uses the > term to mean exactly that.
I can't see (from a quick sampling of the items in there) that any of the items in that list are free, lock-in software. Could you point them out to me? > Certainly other meanings could be derived, but I think my definition is > the most common in the context it was used. It hasn't been for several years, and it is confusing to refer to lock-in "proprietary" software as "commercial", as the two terms are very close to orthogonal. - Matt
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
