Hi,
On 2/18/07, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
On 17-Feb-07, at 8:55 PM, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
*I* consider it OSS - and I have the freedom to do so.
You can call it Steak, too -- but redefining commonly acceptedterms to something only you know the definition of does not help in communication.
that is true - maybe i put it badly, but I feel that OSS should include software that can be used, modified and distributed, but the modified form may not be distributed commercialy. For an analogy, look at this one:
Analogy is not convinicing enough. Creative Commons licenses were not created keeping only software freedom in mind. It had wider scope of including audios, videos, photos, etc too. Having said that I would like to point out that the above referenced license is neither Free Software license nor Open Source license. To understand why Lawrence Lessig chose to include such a license, please spare some bandwidth & time to download and listen to this presentation given by him at 23rd Chaos Communication Congress.
http://dewy.fem.tu-ilmenau.de/CCC/23C3/video/23C3-1760-en-on_free.m4v
Regards Nikhil Prabhakar