On Sun, 27 May 2007 14:24:21 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote:
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:
[...]
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.
The first meaning can be:
From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48
[gcide]:
Free \Free\ (fr[=e]), a. [...]
1. Exempt from subjection to the will of others; not under
restraint, control, or compulsion; able to follow one's
own impulses, desires, or inclinations; determining one's
own course of action; not dependent; at liberty.
[1913 Webster]
From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
free
adj 1: able to act at will; not hampered; not under compulsion or
restraint; free enterprise; a free port; a free
country; I have an hour free; free will; free of
racism; feel free to stay as long as you wish; a
free choice [ant: {unfree}]
A piece of free software is not able to act at will, nor is it
exempt from subjection to the will of others.
Rather, some important freedoms are granted over a piece of
free software.
So you are right that the technical meaning is related to the
common one, but some interpretation and stretching has to be
done in order to go from the latter to the former.
Likewise, the first meaning of proprietary can be:
From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48
[gcide]:
Proprietary \Pro*prie*ta*ry\, a. [L. proprietarius.]
Belonging, or pertaining, to a proprietor; considered as
property; owned; as, proprietary medicine.
[1913 Webster]
From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
proprietary
adj : protected by trademark or patent or copyright; made or
produced or distributed by one having exclusive rights;
`Tylenol' is a proprietary drug of which
`acetaminophen' is the generic form [ant:
{nonproprietary}]
A piece of non-free software belongs to a proprietor, in the sense
that a monopoly over it is held by the copyright holder.
On the other hand free software (even when copyrighted) grants enough
freedoms that everyone has the right to fork it and adapt it to his/her
own needs, even against the will of the original copyright holder: in
this sense we could say that a piece of free software is not really
owned by anyone (even though there are still copyright holders).
A piece of non-free software is aggressively and excessively
protected by trademark or patent or copyright.
Free software can still be protected by copyright, but in a way
that grants enough freedoms to everyone: in this sense it's not
proprietary, because enough actions covered by exclusive rights
are permitted to everyone.
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 still cannot see why proprietary should mean with secret source
code: its basic common meaning is owned by a proprietor and does
not refer to closeness or secrecy.
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.
Yes, exclusivity. When enough actions covered by your exclusive rights
are permitted to everyone (as in Free Software), you have really little
exclusivity left.
That's why I don't think the use of the term proprietary as a
synonym of non-free should be considered so strange or awkward.
[...]
What you're attempting to do is not comparable; it's inventing new
definitions for words which are not commonly or historically agreed
upon.
It's not me. I'm not trying to invent new definitions, as I am not
the only one who uses the term proprietary as equivalent to
non-free. Many others seem to do so: one notable example is RMS
and the FSF (I'm certainly *not* claiming that RMS is always right,
he's very far from being always right actually, but, in this regard,
I think his terminology is not bad).
--
