On Saturday 28 October 2006 18:53, Philip Tellis wrote: > He's not saying that the GPL should allow proprietary software or > that it's bad. All he's saying is that the GPL takes away one of the > developer's freedoms. > > That's not entirely correct though, at it stems from the fact that > proprietary software is incorrectly named. The word proprietary > means "owned or belonging to someone". All software is owned by > someone (the author) unless explicitly placed in the public domain. > > So, if there's anything that isn't proprietary software, it's public > domain software. Everything else is proprietary, including GPLed > software, BSD licenced software and restrictive EULA wrapped > software.
I understood what he was trying to say. But according to Stallman creation of proprietary software was of no consequence. Hence it doesnt even count as a freedom. I am taking the historical meaning of proprietary software and not the one that you just defined. -- Dinesh A. Joshi -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
