6 ms·
No, you started to talk about things being gratis ("royalty-free"), and I'm pointing out that that's not what we're talking about. Or are you saying that becau
by tinco 6y ago
No, you started to talk about things being gratis ("royalty-free"), and I'm pointing out that that's not what we're talking about.
Or are you saying that because I'm stating that open is referring to the licensing, that implies the free refers to the gratis part? I guess that's correct, but that's not a point I raised earlier so I'm not inconsistent in my position.
- cxr 6y ago> No, you started to talk about things being gratis No. That didn't begin with me. This entire discussion is filled with people defending your use of "free" to mean gratis. > I'm pointing out that that's not what we're talking about Okay, well now it's not clear what you're trying to communicate with the word "free". My point was that if you were using the word "free" to mean gratis, then the best thing would be to call it "royalty-free" instead. That's already the accepted nomenclature for creative/industry use, anyway, and it'd be the least confusing choice for this case in particular.
- tinco 6y agoSince I'm not using the word free I'm not trying to communicate anything with it. I think maybe you're confusing me with someone else. You're in the wrong thread at the very least.
- cxr 6y ago> "Open and free" sounds like a great suggestion, maybe we could lead with that? --tinco https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23238506 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23238506
- tinco 6y agoJeez, why did I forget I wrote that. You're totally right I apologize. In my defense it wasn't my idea to call it that, but it makes total sense that you'd start a discussion about it, I guess I was just confused.