commercial != non-free software

[Eric Feliksik]

Dear Pavel, devel-readers,

This thread is not about a development issue, so it doesn't really 
belong here. Please discuss it on the sounder mailinglist.

Pavel Rojtberg wrote:
> 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
>