[Savannah-register-public] [task #10002] Submission of FreeControl

[Quique Rodriguez]

Follow-up Comment #6, task #10002 (project administration):

Rewinding....

In you original reply you said:

> You may think that in english we say "privative" because of
> spanish
> term "softwre privativo", but no, we say "propietary software", 
> please
> change it to avoid confussion. 

I was talking about this... I sad that "there is no problem to use (the term)
"propietary" software (instead of "privative" software).

> You understood bad, the guidelines as rest of files need the 
> licence.
> Where do you read such thing?, if you readed it on an GNU page 
> let us
> know to correct it if nessesary. 

It can be I'm misunderstanding. I inferred it from the page
http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Legally-Significant.html#Legally-Significant

where it says "Copyright does not cover ideas. If someone contributes ideas
but no text, these ideas may be morally significant as contributions, and
worth giving credit for, but they are not significant for copyright purposes.
Likewise, bug reports do not count for copyright purposes."

> So, programs must not depend on propetary software. The 
> programs
> here hosted may work on propietary platoform but they should 
> provide
> at least the same functionallity in a fully free platform. 

Ok, there's no problem.  What I said about thinking in some cases, in the
future, to use some non-free library, it's only to perform some non-free
communication protocol like "ethernet/IP" o some others, but there is no
problem to avoid communicating with these devices if they can give a free
communication protocol.


    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.gnu.org/task/?10002>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/