[pp.int.general] cultural flatrate: PP position?

[Reinier Bakels]

>    One does not want Microsoft or
>    Philips to take open source code, say "thank you", and incorporate it 
> in
>    closed source commercial code.
>
> Why do you choose the terms "open source" and "closed source"
> (which avoid the issue of freedom), rather than the terms "free software"
> and "proprietary software" which refer to freedom?

I apologize (again), I forgot how important terminology is (and sensitive).
But, frankly, doesn't the above scenario demonstrate that "free software" is 
not entirely free? It may seem paradoxical, but Microsoft does *not* have 
the freedom to integrate "free" code in its proprietary products?

Anyway "closed source" is definitely an incorrect designation. My former 
employer, a major US computer firm, used to make source code available for 
its proprietary software until the 1980s. It was pretty useless anyway, 
because it was not updated during the maintenance process. It was more for 
study purposes. And you could easily see that the average commercial 
programmer is a trainee hoping to become a manager soon. Unlike an, uh, free 
software prgrammer.

reinier