Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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: > > > 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. Certainly other meanings could be derived, > but I think my definition is the most common in the context it was used.
Can you be more specific with the reference, please? That's a large document and section 5 seems to contradict your claim anyway. Also, I suggest avoiding the word "common". We have no decent data available to judge how frequently-used that synonym is and the definition is clearly not held "in common". By the way: I am a commercial user of GPL'd code. Enjoy. > [...] I can only find it currently in 2 packages in > Debian--prozilla and elinks. The others that used it in the past > (libcurl, wget?) likely rewrote the code since it was obsolete anyway. > Why not just take the code from one of those if it's really a concern? That seems like a good suggestion. Can you tell which parts replaced it?