summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorP. J. McDermott <pjm@nac.net>2011-11-19 19:31:30 (EST)
committer P. J. McDermott <pjm@nac.net>2011-11-19 19:31:30 (EST)
commit3f62cee3634feb5e05b70a8a7a9b7c86ff8c875c (patch)
treeaa5b7417220a02e65374265bf974e6133448e836
parentda0680999f7dbbdaef5a577a279281e5e5a47670 (diff)
downloadwww-3f62cee3634feb5e05b70a8a7a9b7c86ff8c875c.zip
www-3f62cee3634feb5e05b70a8a7a9b7c86ff8c875c.tar.gz
www-3f62cee3634feb5e05b70a8a7a9b7c86ff8c875c.tar.bz2
Mention "false exclusionary disjunct" instead.
-rwxr-xr-xessays/commercial-free-software.html8
1 files changed, 5 insertions, 3 deletions
diff --git a/essays/commercial-free-software.html b/essays/commercial-free-software.html
index 473c2d3..74b0922 100755
--- a/essays/commercial-free-software.html
+++ b/essays/commercial-free-software.html
@@ -10,9 +10,11 @@
software. They believe that "free" means "noncommercial", and they might
compare "open-source" software and "commercial" software as if the terms
were opposite and mutually exclusive. This is in fact a logical fallacy;
- specifically it is an affirmation of a disjunct. Software can be both free
- and commercial. If a software copyright license allowed only noncommercial
- dealing, it would be considered neither free nor open source.
+ specifically it is a
+ <a href="http://www.pehjota.net/essays/commercial-free-software.html">false
+ exclusionary disjunct</a>. Software can be both free and commercial. If a
+ software copyright license allowed only noncommercial dealing, it would be
+ considered neither free nor open source.
</p>
<p>
Free software is in fact used commercially, and successful business models