On Sun, 27 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Sun, 27 May 2007 02:43:41 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote: > > On Sun, 27 May 2007, Francesco Poli wrote: > [...] > > > Whatever the its origin is[1], the term "proprietary" is now a > > > well-established[2] word used as opposed to "free" (as in freedom). > > > > And no, it's not a well-established word in that regard. Like many > > terms in the Copyright/Trademark/Patent rights space, it gets > > missused by people who are not familiar with it and haven't > > bothered to consult a dictionary. > > If you consult a dictionary you won't find any reference to the FSD > or to the DFSG in the definition of the adjective "free".
Of course, but the usage of free there is merely an extension of its actual english meaning.[1] We use "free" in our conversations about licensing and software because of the meaning that it already posseses, not the other way around. > Please bear in mind that we are talking about technical meanings > that have to be defined in their field: a non-technical dictionary > won't help. The word "proprietary" has a perfectly well defined meaning in this field. It means closed or exclusive. That people mistakenly conflate it with being non-freeness has little to do with its actual meaning. Things that are non-proprietary are perfectly capable of being non-free. See for example the works in non-free for which we actually have source code. They are clearly not proprietary, but are definetly not free. > I've sometimes seen the closed/open distinction used to refer to the > availability of source code (which is a necessary, but > non-sufficient, condition for freeness). It can refer to that, but it can also refer to specifications, standards, protocols, goods, etc. Exclusivity is nearly a synonym for proprietary. > I don't see the term "proprietary" as more confusing than "free". > Once they are defined in the context of software freedom, they are > perfectly clear to me. > > If, on the other hand, you insist that a dictionary must be > consulted, then you will find many meanings for the term "free" > (including "gratuitous"), none of which specifies which freedoms > should be granted over a piece of software in order to call it "free > software". English has a great deal of words which have multiple definitions on which generations of english speakers have agreed upon and/or abused. The meaning of a word which has multiple definitions is generally clarified from context, and if not, it's trival to ask. What you're attempting to do is not comparable; it's inventing new definitions for words which are not commonly or historically agreed upon. Don Armstrong 1: Not surpisingly, the meaning we use is actually the first meaning in most dictionaries; gratis typically is found farther down. -- The sheer ponderousness of the panel's opinion ... refutes its thesis far more convincingly than anything I might say. The panel's labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting on it--and is just as likely to succeed. -- Alex Kozinski in Silveira V Lockyer http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]