On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 07:32:20 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org said:
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 accepted terms 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.
You may feel like you want it to be Steak too -- but OSS has a well defined meaning in the community, and espescially on a linux related list, open means something more than just visibility into the sources. Openness, in this context, does require the software to be open to be commercially redistributed, as long as the sources are continued to be distributed with no additional restrictions (ie, made less open).
manoj