AcrobatReader: A bug or intentionally?

[Man-Chicken]

On Wednesday 25 April 2007 13:13:14 Art Alexion wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 April 2007 01:58, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> > > It is also not illegal for a Linux distro to include
> > > software under terms agreed to with the provider of proprietary
> > > software.
> >
> > No, it's not.  However, I'm not sure Acrobat still offers (or ever did)
> > such terms.
>
> Sure they do.  Windows versions of the reader are often distributed by
> other software vendors that use PDF for documentation.  Two examples: 
> Turbo Tax exports the tax forms it generates to PDF and includes the reader
> with the tax software.  My cell phone Samsung and my carrier provide a CD
> with the manual in PDF.  The only software (application, not data) is the
> Acrobat Reader.
>
> On its web site and in the forums, Adobe provides instructions for
> distributing documentation via CD and configuring the reader to run from
> the CD so that it need not be installed on the hard drive.
>
> Adobe wants two things:  To give away as many readers as possible to add
> value to the PDF format and, hence make money selling PDF creation and
> editing software.  To keep its code proprietary.
>
> Heresy alert: I don't care what Richard M. Stallman says, there is a
> difference between free software and open source software.  People can give
> away proprietary software (like Adobe does) and sell open source software
> (Like Red Hat and Suse do)

Richard Stallman never said that Free Software and Open Source Software were 
the same thing.  On the contrary, he has made a point to inform people that 
Free Software (as freedom in software) is a better approach as it points out 
freedom, whereas Open Source software merely focuses on the software itself 
and its code.  Be sure to have read Stallman's work before you go about 
referencing it.

-- 
~ Man-Chicken <><
(A)bort, (R)etry, (I)nfluence with large hammer.
The number of the beast - vi vi vi