Posted by: Preston St. Pierre
on October 29, 2004 11:36 PM
I read your entire article, and I must say this: To someone who believes software should have no owners (Stallman), saying "proprietary" software is quite correct. He is simply referring to software in which the alleged proprieters enforce their rights in exchange for some sort of compensation.
Sure, there are loopholes as you point out. These loopholes, however, are simply with the *technical* definition and not with the real definition. The technical definition is only useful if you are a lawyer, and no lawyer will ever have to argue that "Yes, this is proprietary software" because as you said, proprietary is a largely imprecise way of rating software and so the courts wouldn't accept it.
Long story short: It works, and it works, and it works. Proprietary software does exist.