Re: price of software [was Re: [ox-en] Book project]
- From: Russell McOrmond <russell flora.ca>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:58:31 -0500 (EST)
On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Graham Seaman wrote:
But I have to pay to use commercial software and I don't have to pay to
use free software, which I do think was what was meant (if it was
translated correctly in the first place).
Not to always challenge language, but: *grins*
"Commercial Software does not mean Proprietary Software"
http://weblog.flora.org/article.php3?story_id=111
I really believe that equating Commercial Software to Proprietary
Software is one of the most effective pieces of FUD being promoted by the
proprietary software companies against FLOSS. If they can convince the
largest users/customers of software (services or products) that Free
Software is not appropriate to use in a commercial environment, then they
win.
I am a commercial supplier of software services -- offering services
based (almost only - getting better every day) on FLOSS software. The
very existance of my company should be proof that commercial software is
not the same as proprietary software.
Please can you hold off a bit? Since Russell just wrote:
'I find much of the rest of this thread rather confusing in seeming to
suggest that if something is 'libre' it automatically becomes 'gratis'.'
I'd like to see if he shows I've got something wrong in my reasoning...
Curious - have I given any food for thought on this?
---
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
Any 'hardware assist' for communications, whether it be eye-glasses,
VCR's, or personal computers, must be under the control of the citizen
and not a third party. -- http://www.flora.ca/russell/
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/