said Alexander Hvostov (on 2003-02-09), > On Sat, 2003-02-08 at 21:31, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > >>"Alex" == Alexander Hvostov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > When did Pine become proprietary? > > > > Pine has always been non-free. > > I don't think we are using the same definition of 'proprietary'. I'm > using the one from the Jargon File: > > In the language of hackers and users, inferior; implies a > product not conforming to open-systems standards, and thus one > that puts the customer at the mercy of a vendor who can inflate > service and upgrade charges after the initial sale has locked > the customer in. > > Pine conforms to an awful lot of open-systems standards, makes no > attempt to lock users in (I migrated from it to another MUA fairly > painlessly), and does not put users at the mercy of anyone who can > inflate service and upgrade charges because it didn't cost anything to > begin with. > > Just because it's non-free doesn't mean it is 'proprietary' as per this > definition. > > Alex. > >
It does as per this definition: $ webster proprietary ... 2. something that is used, produced, or marketed under exclusive legal right of the inventor or maker; ... Geordie.