On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 08:02 +0000, Alex Hudson wrote: > On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 08:44 +0100, Matthias Kirschner wrote: > > Would anyone here disagree that software is commercial as soon as people > > are paid to develop it? > > I think there's a difference between software developed commercially and > commercial software - just because people are paid to write it isn't the > crucial difference for me. Indeed, even if people got compensation of > some sort, I wouldn't necessarily call it commercial: soliciting > donations, for example, doesn't make software commercial for me, even if > it pulls in a considerate amount each month. > > I would struggle to label most free software as commercial on that > basis. RHEL would be an example I suppose, but I wouldn't call Ubuntu > commercial.
They sell support contract for Ubuntu, why not ? > Of course commerciality isn't equivalent to non-freedom but it's pretty > indicative and if you used it as a rule of thumb you'd probably be right > 99.999% of the time. Bollocks. Simo -- Simo Sorce Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer <[email protected]> Principal Software Engineer at Red Hat, Inc. <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
