commercial != non-free software

[Harold]

How about non-opensource ?

?Harold Sawyer
www.SawyerSphere.net
www.centralconnecticutwcg.org

This email has not been scanned for  viruses  . . .  
as I am running Mozilla on Linux, they can do little to me.
If you are using IE on Windows, you might want to at least think about using Mozilla for browsing and Thunderbird for mail.



Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 09:17:36AM +0100, Matthew East wrote:
>   
>> * Eric Feliksik:
>>     
>>> While it is interesting that these packages can be provided by
>>> Canonical, I think the word "commercial" is misplaced here.  We all know
>>> free software can be commercial software (for many people Ubuntu itself
>>> is commercial, or some of the packages are), and non-free software can
>>> even be non-commercial. When Ubuntu aims to promote free software, it's
>>> important not to create this confusion.
>>>       
>> Agreed. For me it's not really a point of principle as one of
>> convenience, the normal meaning of "commercial" for people is that they
>> will have to pay for the software. Since they don't have to pay for the
>> software in dapper-commercial, it is not an appropriate name.
>>     
>
> While it may or may not be feasible to change the name of the repository at
> this time, I'd be interested to hear suggestions for meaningful, intuitive
> names which aren't defined as the opposite of something else.
>
> "proprietary" is the closest that comes to mind.
>
>