On Dec 17, 2009, at 2:00 AM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: > CLOSED derivative works. > > If it's copyright, it's proprietary. > > "proprietary" == "property". If it's copyright, it has an owner, therefore > it's property, therefore it's proprietary.
Although the GNU project disagrees again with your viewpoint: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html “Closed” Describing nonfree software as “closed” clearly refers to the term “open source”. In the free software movement, we do not want to be confused with the open source camp, so we are careful to avoid saying things that would encourage people to lump us in with them. For instance, we avoid describing nonfree software as “closed”. We call it “nonfree” or “proprietary”. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware Proprietary software is software that is not free or semi-free. Its use, redistribution or modification is prohibited, or requires you to ask for permission, or is restricted so much that you effectively can't do it freely. Of course, in this regard Stallman's well known viewpoint that "intellectual property" is a legal unjustifiable term as copyright, patent, and trademark law are not based in property rights at all, is counter to what I expect most lawyers would say. (I say that if a dwarf planet like Pluto isn't a planet then it holds that intellectual property might also not be property. But I'm just a guy on a couch.) In the context of debian-legal, especially where the term "copyleft" is used, I would have assumed that the default vocabulary is well aligned with that of GNU, and to be expected. Andrew da...@dalkescientific.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
