@@ -191,15 +191,15 @@ Software freedom is only complete when no restrictions are imposed on how
these freedoms are exercised. Specifically, users and programmers can
exercise these freedoms noncommercially or commercially. Licenses that grant
these freedoms for noncommercial activities but prohibit them for commercial
activities are considered non-free. Even the Open Source Initiative
(\defn{OSI}) (the arbiter of what is considered ``Open Source'') also rules
such licenses not in fitting with its ``Open Source Definition''.
activities are considered non-free. The Open Source Initiative
(\defn{OSI}) (the arbiter of what is considered ``Open Source'') also regards
such licenses as inconsistent with its ``Open Source Definition''.
In general, software for which any of these freedoms are
restricted in any way is called ``non-Free Software.'' Typically, the
term ``proprietary software'' is used more or less interchangeably with
``non-Free Software.'' Personally, I tend to use the term ``non-Free
Software'' to refer to noncommercial software that restricts freedom
restricted in any way is called ``nonfree'' (or as I prefer to write it, ``non-Free'') software. Some use the
term ``proprietary software'' more or less interchangeably with
``non-Free software.'' Personally, I tend to use the term ``non-Free
software'' to refer to software available noncommercially that restricts freedom
(such as ``shareware'') and ``proprietary software'' to refer to
commercial software that restricts freedom (such as nearly all of
Microsoft's and Oracle's offerings).