Re: [ox-en] [Fwd: <nettime> dossier: WIPO knuckles under on open-source software]
- From: "Benj. Mako Hill" <mako debian.org>
- Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:50:08 -0700
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 12:59:47PM -0400, Russell McOrmond wrote:
The issue of FLOSS vs non-FLOSS (saying proprietary is incorrect as
all software not in the public domain is proprietary)
This seems to be semantic hair splitting. Now I'm not opposed to the
term but FLOSS means little or nothing to many people *within* the
Free and Open Source software communities and this is the first time
I've heard the term non-FLOSS at all. "Proprietary," on the other hand,
is one of the few terms in the Free and Open Source Software world
that nobody, including outsiders, seems to find confusing or
controversial -- even if they are, after all, overlooking subtleties
of the legal application of Free Software licensing in using it.
The marketing droids for the non-FLOSS companies first starting using
the term proprietary not to refer to whether or not they had ownership
(they obviously did) to their code but to refer to the fact that they
had exclusive rights to a technology or standard and that was, by
virtue of this, better.
Check out the entry for proprietary in the Jargon file it does a good
explaining the terms actual usage in technical communities. I've
attached it to this email.
Regards,
Mako
--
Benjamin Mako Hill
mako debian.org
http://mako.yukidoke.org/
From Jargon File (4.3.3, 20 Sep 2002) [jargon]:
proprietary adj. 1. In {marketroid}-speak, superior; implies a product
imbued with exclusive magic by the unmatched brilliance of the company's
own hardware or software designers. 2. In the language of hackers and
users, inferior; implies a product not conforming to open-systems
standards, and thus one that puts the customer at the mercy of a vendor
able to gouge freely on service and upgrade charges after the initial
sale has locked the customer in. Often used in the phrase "proprietary
crap". 3. Synonym for closed-source, e.g. software issued in binary
without source and under a restrictive license.
Since the coining of the term {open source}, many hackers have made a
conscious effort to distinguish between `proprietary' and `commercial'
software. It is possible for software to be commercial (that is,
intended to make a profit for the producers) without being proprietary.
The reverse is also possible, for example in binary-only freeware.