On Saturday 17 February 2007 13:37, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 17-Feb-07, at 12:51 PM, Baishampayan Ghose wrote:
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
you are getting confused between ideology and practice. Whether you like it or not, it *is* open source. The source is available and you can modify and use it how you like and distribute the modifications subject to certain limitations.
*I* consider it OSS - and I have the freedom to do so.
Amen. Even if the reasoning does not stand?
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.
not so. If you cannot see the difference between what M$ does and what scilab is doing, I feel very sorry for you
The licence is strange to say the least. You can use and distribute commercially, subject to the advertising clause, the original software. But you cannot distribute commercially if you derive or composite it with anything else. However uou can distribute if u do not charge. The worst problem with closed software is preventing the spread and growth of knowledge. This licence does prevent, even if the restriction is against a very tiny minority. Shades of amateur versus professional sportsman. Wasn't it another frenchman who condemned several generations of sports persons to abject poverty? Any way the author of the licence must be laughing over his wine looking at people trying to make sense of this one.