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.
The license is *not* recognised as OSS by OSI, nor is it recognised by FSF as FOSS. However there is no law in existence which recognises OSI or FSF as the sole arbitrators as to what is OSS and what is not.
*I* consider it OSS - and I have the freedom to do so.
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