At 10:23 AM +1000 6/8/01, hartr@redhat.com wrote:
>On 31 Jul, Sean Neakums wrote:
>
>> And let's try not to confuse `commercial' and `proprietary', please.
>
>When talking about Linux, there is a real problem if the distinction is
>not made. Linux is most definitely a COMMERCIAL operating system, but it
>is likelwise most definitely not PROPRIETARY.
Concise Oxford English Dictionary:
commercial: 1. adj. of, engaged in, bearing on, commerce; interested in
financial return rather than artistry [...] 3. Hence ~ism n., ~ize
v.t., make (merely) commercial, derive commercial profit from [...]
I would question whether Linux is commercial. Sure, the RedHat release
is a commercial operating system and there are other commercial systems
built around the linux kernel.
Linux itself seems to me to favour artistry over financial return and
not be designed merely to generate a profit. Certainly the roots of
linux are non-commercial, as are many of the additional software
packages that make up a complete linux installation.
...R.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.1 : Fri Aug 31 2001 - 03:10:03 EST