<snip>
Nothing at all. So, no, the "proprietary" label is not
enough.
That label is there AFTER you have been pushed through the gated enable 3rd
party software
setup,
which is mean to include in dept information about free software and
Fedora's mission.
I'm not concerned about the gating. I agree that asking the same
question again and again inhibits usability.
As Michael pointed out in his e-mail, better wording could give more
visibility to Free software and the community's mission than the current
text.
So my point was that even after you been educated on the issue
through that
gating process
there is some subliminal messaging around it.
Well, it should really be more than subliminal messaging even at that
point. :)
For example, instead of framing all of this in terms of "proprietary"
software, can we frame it in terms of "non free"/"non free and not open
source" software? Would that require a review from a legal perspective?
I ask because even though the two terms are synonymous, "non free" (to
me) says more than that the software is proprietary. It also says that
there is something called "free software", and that gives me more
information to a user in an educational sense.
Would something like this be doable?
--
Thanks,
Regards,
Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD"
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha