Commercial is not the opposite of free

Commercial is not the opposite of free

Posted 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
> applications

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)