On Monday 06 July 2009, Raj Mathur wrote: > On Monday 06 Jul 2009, narendra sisodiya wrote: > > If redhat is bundling some with GPL software and making a new OS > > which has restriction, this is truly valid scenario. You can say > > "Redhat Linux" is not a Open Soruce Linux OS, It is commerical Linux > > OS. > > > > Please correct me where am wrong !! > > Apologies in advance for nitpicking, but Open Source and Commercial > aren't opposites. Open Source can (and must) be commercial. If you > want to contrast, the opposite of Open Source is "Proprietary".
Opposite of open is closed. Even FLOSS is proprietory - the code is owned by the copyright owner. > > Regards, > > -- Raju > -- > Raj Mathur [email protected] http://kandalaya.org/ > GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5 0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F > PsyTrance & Chill: http://schizoid.in/ || It is the mind that moves -- Rgds JTD -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
