The word that is "Proprietary"

[income at ihug.co.nz]

'proprietary software' in the history of the vernacular is underpinning software that users expanded into and over which they
had no control of the development platform. When I make my WinGrid source code available it is because I don't wish anyone to
find themselves in a box canyon, as I did with Wang. I also do it because of the pleasure I know that comes from programming and
this I wish to share unselfishly in order to guarantee a likely succession of developers.

But what happens when there are no takers because of a glut of freeware. For example, I don't know of any programmer who is
studying my source code and no one has ever made any contribution. Sure I've lifted other's free source snippets and
acknowledged modifications but no one has put any problem solving my way. Maybe after word gets around that I'm no longer around
someone will contribute. But if nobody ever does contribute what does that say for the status of the WinGrid  Free Public
License. Can it mean that the WFPL aspect of the property be withdrawn from the public so that the project will only stay free
if the license can be shown to have been upheld by a sublicensee.

"W. Yip" wrote:

> At the risk of nit-picking:
>
> I wish to make a probably novel suggestion that the Open Source Community
> replace the word 'proprietary' with the word 'commodity' in our literature.
>
> The word 'proprietary' is often used in context of with those software
> released under restrictive licenses (eg. M$).
>
> The are certain problems with the word 'proprietary'. Firstly, and
> fundamentally, it is legally a misnomer because open source software is
> copyright, and copyright itself is a form of proprietary interest.
> Secondly, by clustering M$ and all other selfish, anti-social companies
> together under the word 'proprietary', we seem to be giving  the false
> impression open source is 'non-proprietary', that is to say, the software
> programmer does not own that which he releases under open source licenses.
> (when actually he does) IOW, the word 'proprietary' does carry a fair bit
> of bad baggage. I think it can dissuade a newbie as much as the word 'free'
> can.
>
> As to the word 'commodity', it is underpinned by much legal literature,
> particularly the Chicago School of Economic theory, which is famous for
> reducing copyright to the level of a commodity. There is much academic
> debate on how intellectual property extends *beyond* mere profit motives
> and being a static, rigid commodity to be exchanged and owned. Goldstein's
> "Copyright's Highway" is such a book. <Insert arguments on how publishing
> source code can faciliate innovation of computer science here>. It follows
> that the word 'commodity' is far more effective in illustrating the
> anti-social, materialistic and one-sided nature of what we now call
> 'proprietary software'.
>
> Since the Open Source model recognisably occupies that middle ground
> between pure computer science and commodity software, I think it more
> appropriate to label companies like M$ as 'commodity software' instead of
> 'proprietary software'.
>
> I hope you understand this, and would love to hear your reactions.
>
> Cheers