commercial != non-free software

[Pavel Rojtberg]

Eric Feliksik wrote:
> 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.
I think commercial fits pretty well if you relate it to the producer and 
not to the way it is used.

All the apps in commercial are non-free and its development is 
controlled by commercial corporations.
Ubuntu does not support this applications.

Restricted is pretty the same but it includes core applications which 
have to be supported by Ubuntu.

Multiverse includes software which is free as in speech but eventually 
not free as in law.

Pavel