On 15/03/11 11:03, Hugo Roy wrote:
From what I can read, we cannot reach a definition of "commercial software" or "non commercial software" that isn't self referring (as in: all software is "commercial" unless forbidden, for instance with a non commercial license: which is a bad idea btw).
You may agree or not. But anyway: what's the point?
Does it disturb you that we may call all Free Software "commercial" software? Why? Isn't it a good thing that people are free to make money out of it? What's negative about "commercial"? As long as we stand for our freedoms, this should include the freedom to business, right?
On the other hand, if you push for a definition of commercial software that may exclude most Free Software, you see where you're going: you're not doing a favour to people's freedom, because you exclude Free Software from the marketplace.
If we learn from the weasels we need terms like commercial software that can mean what we like; that can include free software after the discussion is closed and the EU recommendations have been adopted.
Sam