Andrew Ho wrote:
> Hello,
>
> DG>read the front page of http://www.pcre.org/ and I noticed this in the
> DG>first paragraph:
> DG>
> DG> "The PCRE library is free, even for building commercial software."
> DG>
> DG>I'd like to point out that this is a misnomer. It implies that other
> DG>kind of free software is for non-commercial use only. Both BSD-derived
> DG>and copyleft (GPL-like) are available for commercial purposes. As
> such,
> DG>I suggest that the line be changed to read:
> DG>
> DG> "The PCRE library is free, even for building proprietary
> software."
>
> PH>I have forwarded your message to webmaster@???, in case he
> doesn't
> PH>notice it here.
>
> I noticed it, and, while I didn't personally find the original
> statement confusing, I agree "proprietary" is more precise than
> "commercial," and have made the change as David suggested. Thanks for
> the feedback!
>
> Humbly,
>
> Andrew
I'm glad to hear this. The problem with the word commercial is that
almost all software can be used for commercial purposes, with some
exceptions (I think MAME could be one). Whether software is free or
proprietary is an orthogonal question to whether it is commercial or not.
Best regards,
David
