| |||||||||||||
Commercial is not the opposite of freeCommercial is not the opposite of freePosted May 4, 2005 4:53 UTC (Wed) by bignose (subscriber, #40)In reply to: First Look at Libranet 3.0 by oithona Parent article: First Look at Libranet 3.0
> It is not true, however that Libranet 3.0 is without commercial
Here is a prime example of the confusion caused by using "commercial" when one actually means "non-free".
Libranet GNU/Linux is *itself* a commercial product -- by paying the vendor, one obtains it. That's commercial.
> it includes Acrobat 7.0 reader
Which is zero cost and non-free.
> Macromedia Flash Player
Which is zero cost and non-free.
> Realplayer
Which is zero-cost and non-free.
> Java RTE
Which is zero cost and non-free.
> Opera Web Browser
Which is non-free and, with advertising, is zero cost.
> and Turboprint
Can't comment on that one as I don't know it.
> a demo version of Codeweavers' Crossover Office.
Which is zero cost and non-free.
Please, don't use "commercial" to refer to restrictions on freedom; the two issues are completely orthogonal, as the above list easily demonstrates.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||