A day in the life of the CentOS team [LWN.net]

A day in the life of the CentOS team

Posted Mar 26, 2006 19:17 UTC (Sun) by job (subscriber, #670)
In reply to: A day in the life of the CentOS team by hpp
Parent article: A day in the life of the CentOS team

Sorry, I don't understand much of your comment. Do you consider open source businesses non-commercial? In what way?

(Log in to post comments)

A day in the life of the CentOS team

Posted Mar 26, 2006 20:54 UTC (Sun) by hpp (subscriber, #4756) [Link]

I am trying to make a distinction between:

Old-style commercial: closed source, single vendor, support from one vendor, don't tinker
Open source: multiple vendors, support from multiple sources (optionally a vendor, generally on-line, also in-house), freedom to tinker and adapt

I should have said "commercial closed source" vs "open source".

Ah, so you mean...

Posted Mar 27, 2006 3:08 UTC (Mon) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]

You would have been understood immediately if you used the more explicit terms Free vs. Proprietary:

Proprietary: closed source, single vendor, support from one vendor, don't tinker
Free: multiple vendors, support from multiple sources (optionally a vendor, generally on-line, also in-house), freedom to tinker and adapt

I think we don't need "Open Source" any more.

Ah, so you mean...

Posted Mar 27, 2006 14:42 UTC (Mon) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]

Actually, for proprietary, I'd leave out "closed source" and "don't tinker".

And being even more pedantic, "proprietary" comes from "property", meaning "owned" - and that INCLUDES LINUX! Okay, we don't use that word that way any more, but we can thank the marketing slogan "Unix is Proprietary, Windows is Open" for that ...

Cheers,
Wol

A day in the life of the CentOS team

Posted Mar 27, 2006 6:41 UTC (Mon) by job (subscriber, #670) [Link]

What has commercial to do with it? Where does noncommercial closed source fit in ("freeware")?

Why didn't you simply write closed source / open source, or nonfree ("proprietary") / free?