-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Saturday 17 February 2007 01:37 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves cobbled together some glyphs to say:
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.
If I can't sell a modified version of Scilab (keeping the current license intact), how is it Open Source / Free Software? FOSS is not against business. It never was. Open Source is what the Open Source definition says. You can't just interpret it in your own way and claim whatever license you like as an Open Source license.
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.
I can see that you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. Let me repeat -- the sheer availability of the source doesn't make a software FOSS. Commercial modifications are an important part of all FOSS. You are free to consider it as whatever you want, but at the same time, I am free, nay entitled to reject your [mis]interpretation with equal disdain.
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
M$ puts restrictions on us by not giving us the source (with all the necessary freedoms). Scilab puts restrictions on us by giving us the source only subject to some limitations. I don't see any difference between the two. What you need to understand is that FOSS is not just about the availability of the source code. It never was.
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