commercial != non-free software

[Matthew Palmer]

On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 06:06:52PM +0200, 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.

It doesn't fit at all.

> All the apps in commercial are non-free and its development is 

"in commercial" -- eh?

Organisations brought into existence for the purposes of engaging in
commerce and yielding a profit certainly do sometimes produce software
artifacts generally recognised as being "Free", just as individuals working
for their own benefit sometimes produce software artifacts generally
recognised as not being "Free".

I will repeat that in simpler terms -- there is no correlation between being
a commercial entity and the Freeness or otherwise of any software written.

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

It's the other way around.

- Matt