On 29 June 2010 15:25, Stephen Paling <paling_at_wisc.edu> wrote:
> Chris,
>
> I'm not sure what license you're referring to, but if there is no cost for the software, and it's open source under a license like the GPL, I don't understand how you can see there is no freedom involved. My distro du jour is PCLinuxOS, which is free, and I can alter the source code if I want to (which I don't!). That feels pretty free to me, both free as in freedom and free as in beer.
>
Hi Stephen
I wasn't referring to any license I was referring to the fact that
people were referring to FOSS as non-commercial and I was pointing out
there is nothing inherently non-commercial about it. And that
proprietary can be non-commercial but that only means it's free, not
that it conveys freedom.
I was simply saying that just because something is free of cost
doesn't make it automatically FOSS, and just because something is FOSS
doesn't make it nessecarily free of cost.
I'm sorry If I didn't speak clearly enough. I just wanted to point out
the opposite of FOSS is proprietary not commercial.
Chris
Received on Mon Jun 28 2010 - 23:35:40 EDT