May I ask why? I've never seen 'privative' used in this context before.

dylunio

"proprietary software" is a standing commonly-used (in the free-software community) term. The other often-used term is "non-free".

If "privative" is equivalent to "private" then it describes a whole different kind of thing. Software can be private and that is OK. It is neither nonfree nor free for others then because others don't have a way to access it. It is the code you create and simply don't release anywhere publically and just use internally.

Proprietary software is one which is released, but under terms that forbid you to do what you want with your copy of it which is usually copying, sharing and making modifications.

Free Software is one released publically, but under terms which allow for these freedoms.

Btw, welcome to Nuxified Gustavo!

libervisco, 'privative' comes from the word 'deprive' ("causing, or tending to cause, deprivation." -- dictionary.reference.com), thus I think it is technically correct, though I don't think one should change from using 'proprietary'.

dylunio

I see. Well I agree. The word itself is correct then, but I too don't see the reason for replacing the word "proprietary" with it, especially since some people not so well versed in less popular english words (like me) could confuse it with "private".

Hi.

Dylunio's right and, AFAIR, Richard Stallman uses this word to refer to this kind of software in his talks; this is where my suggetion came from.

I like this adjetive because, IMO, it perfectly defines what this kind of software is about.

"Proprietary" and "privative" are not synonyms. "Proprietary" refers to an ownership, while "privative" refers to something that moves you away from freedom.

If I have an open-source software company, our products are going to be "our property". We'd be providing people with the source code of the software we made/own for free under the terms of a free software license (such as GPL). So, Can't a software piece be open-source, free (as a beer) and proprietary at the same time?

We may give to know this (new?) approach, while explaning the reasons to make the switch to GNU/Linux.

Cheers.

PS: libervisco, thanks for the welcome.

I assume you mean owned as in owning the copyright of the Free Software you released. If you restrict the meaning of the word "proprietary" to "that which is owned" then yes, you have a point.

We usually say that software can be free and commercial at the same time rather than free and proprietary. I am afraid that this kind of terminology is just too common at this point that it could maybe even be dangerous to talk about "free and proprietary at the same time" possibly leading some people to think that Free Software is being compromised in some way or maybe even that we are actually talking about free as in beer proprietary software.

There is one sense in which the word proprietary may be apt though. With Free Software it is you who is essentially given the ownership rights over a copy of this software that you have bought, downloaded or obtained in any other way, while with "proprietary" software the proprietor essentially owns all copies and the user is merely renting it for use.

So maybe overall the term "privative" is superior, but due to common use and understanding of the word "proprietary" I doubt it will catch on.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html

it seams that proprietary and non-free are different - I was not previously aware of that. I suggest we keep proprietary, it being a common word with similiar meaning, or use non-free, which is more generally understood.

I prefer "non-free", it stresses that it is different from "free". Someone who doesn't know anything about the terminology might not immediately see that free and proprietary are opposites.

Well, I think "non-free" is fine too.

Cheers.

Sorry for joining late...

I had a huge big nodd of approval when I read what you wrote Gustavo

This is so true and would avoid so much suspicion and "linux=communism=anticopyright" misconceptions.

Unfortunately, the issue is similar to the GNU/linux vs Gnu/Linux vs Linux issue (still unresolved... sigh.. I need to discuss this properly): the term is not known and "proprietary" is already used to mean "privative".

I think indeed using more "non-free" terms in place of "proprietary" is better. I will do this this week. Thanks for the wise proposal.

In any case, I will use the word "privative" orally when I introduce Linux to people now

Olivier.

Hmm I'm not sure how to translate the word "privative" to Croatian... :strumpf:

Hi, Olivier.

Yes... But at least in Spanish, this doesn't happen: Proprietary (propietario), Private (privado) and Privative (privativo) are three well-known adjetives. If you say that something is "privative" (in Spanish), people will easily understand what you mean.

I agree with that: It's better in English, however, in Spanish it would sound a bit weird. Indeed people will get what "non-free" (no libre) means, but "privative" is more common, in my opinion.

Thus, may I use "privative" in the Spanish translation? I wouldn't replace all the occurences of "proprietary", but just introduce this "new" word.

Cheers!

I have no authority over getgnulinux translations, but technically neither has Olivier
I think it's fine. Use whatever best hits the meaning in your language - if privative, having the right meaning, is well understood and you think it's the best word for the job, by all means use it ! It would lower the quality if you didn't

Thank you, free-zombie! I'll use it from now on.

Well, you've put a bug (in a positive way) out. I am beginning to use the word "privative" more as well. I just used it in my latest blog entry.

Couln't say this better =) Of course use the words you think express the ideas better.
In French for example, "costless" ("gratuit") and "free as in freedom" ("libre") are two different words. What a bizarre idea the English had to use the same word! It sounds plain ridiculous in French to say "free as beer, not speech", for example

Speaking of this, today I have received an email saying the following:

I immediately changed the homepage text to "free as in beer and speech". I think even changing it to "free as in speech, and usually free as in beer" is a very good idea. What do you think?

Olivier.

first of all, I agree that skipping the 'in' was a serious bug Changing it further is a nice idea, as well

Hi, Olivier.

The same over here!

• Free (or "for free") = Gratuito (or gratis, depending on what you want to say).
• Free (like freedom) = Libre.

Well, I'd prefer your suggestion.

Cheers.

Yes, I agree that would be even better.

Yup, I agree with you Gustavo, I'll use it from now on too.

It was an intersting post, thanks!