[Fsf-friends] [Fwd]:Non-free vs proprietary

Ramanraj K ramanraj@md4.vsnl.net.in
Thu Jun 24 06:14:47 IST 2004

  Vijay Kumar Bagavath Singh wrote:

>Ramanraj writes:
>>They are not free copies and therefore, let us not call them as free copies.
>>It is better to say "Distributing complimentary copies of non-free ..."
>>The OED defines "complimentary" as "given free of charge".
>Wouldn't it be better to use the term "proprietary software" instead of "non-free software." You wouldn't have the confusion associated with the term "free." (Especially when the two meanings of the word occur in the same sentence.)
>"Distributing complimentary copies of proprietary software ..."
Strictly, free software, is also owned by its author(s), but it is 
licensed to be freely used under the terms of the GPL.  It is the 
restrictions in the license that distinguish free from non-free 
software, and hence it is more appropriate to call the software whose 
licenses give no freedom to share, copy, redistribute or modify as 
non-free software.

More information about the Fsf-friends mailing list