-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Saturday 17 February 2007 10:17 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves cobbled together some glyphs to say:
Scilab is neither a Free Software nor an Open Source Software, since it doesn't allow commercial distribution of a modified version
it is open source. however the license is not recognised by OSI - and scilab makes this very clear on its own web site
Heh, now you have come up with your own definition of what is ``Open Source'' too? If the license doesn't satisfy the ``Open Source Definition'', it can not be ``Open Source''. Ditto with the ``Free Software Definition''. Merely disclosing the source (with a lot of restrictions) doesn't make something FOSS. There are a lot of additional Freedoms which ought to be provided with that too. If what you say is true, even M$ Windows is ``Open Source'' since M$ does ``share'' the source with _some_ people under _some_ conditions.
Regards, BG
- -- Baishampayan Ghose b.ghose@ubuntu.com Ubuntu -- Linux for Human Beings http://www.ubuntu.com/
1024D/86361B74 BB2C E244 15AD 05C5 523A 90E7 4249 3494 8636 1B74