On 15/03/11 11:03, Hugo Roy wrote: > From what I can read, we cannot reach a definition of "commercial > software" or "non commercial software" that isn't self referring (as in: > all software is "commercial" unless forbidden, for instance with a non > commercial license: which is a bad idea btw). > > You may agree or not. But anyway: what's the point? > > Does it disturb you that we may call all Free Software "commercial" > software? Why? Isn't it a good thing that people are free to make money > out of it? What's negative about "commercial"? As long as we stand for > our freedoms, this should include the freedom to business, right? > > On the other hand, if you push for a definition of commercial software > that may exclude most Free Software, you see where you're going: you're > not doing a favour to people's freedom, because you exclude Free > Software from the marketplace.
If we learn from the weasels we need terms like commercial software that can mean what we like; that can include free software after the discussion is closed and the EU recommendations have been adopted. Sam _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
