Re: Economics and the GPL

On Sat, 15 Jun 2002 21:45, Tony Lambregts wrote:

> >I may or may not agree with the coercion word, but his use of
> >proprietary appears correct to me.  In fact, I have thought this way
> >about the GPL being a community-based proprietor for more than a year.
> >
> The following are links to definintions for proprietary
>
> http://e-comm.webopedia.com/TERM/p/proprietary.html
>
> http://searchsystemsmanagement.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid20_gci214576,00.html
>
> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=proprietary
>
> No one can have exclusive rights to GPL software. This use of the word
> proprietory for something that anyone can buy, sell, or give away just
> drives me crazy. *_Anyone_*  is not group it is all groups (even
> Microsoft can sell GPL software) , and therefore proprietory cannot
> apply.  I can't believe this has to be pointed out.
>
> Words have definitions for a reason and you can't just arbitrarily
> change that definition. so please just knock it off

I did not even mean it as an insult.  I was stating that I thought of
GNU as a community which owned the software.

Look at proprietor instead of proprietary:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=proprietor+
Check the definition of 2b (or not 2b :)).  That is more of what I was
trying to convey.

As you seem to be attacking everyone that does not agree with you, maybe
you should "just knock it off" and be more civil.

Sean
--------------
[email protected]