Don't call it propietary

In the context of software freedom, and intelectual and industrial property, the word propietary refers to property, which referst to ownership. Even etimologically, the Latin stem propi means own.

This evokes the question of ownership, which resonates as fundamental right to many cultures, especially the western capitalist one. But "owned or not owned" is not the important question. The real question is who has that ownership.

Ownership means being the one to decide what can or cannot be done with the property:

• In Free Software the user has the 4 freedoms and thereby the user almost owns the software.
• Non-free software belongs to the author, and via private licenses, usually to the vendor. When we buy software we don't get to own it. We just buy a limited right to use it. Calling that propietary and thinking that since you paid you own it is completely flawed.

So, for me, Free Software is also propietary (by the user as almost public property).

Then, what would be a better term?

The key is the kind of ownership. Non-free software is private property of the owner. The word private stresses how ownership deprives others from deciding what to do with the property. This is pretty much the definition of non-free.