Hi,
On Friday 14 April 2006 19:25, nipra wrote:
May I know what *Open Source* term you are talking of. When we talk of the term Open Source it definitely refers to Open Source Initiative. http://www.opensource.org/ Please don't confuse eveyone further.
You are right, I am confusing everyone. Mea Culpa. Let me accept the OSI definition of Open Source and return to the original question. btw who do you refer to as "we" ?
Or rather checking out the meaning of Free software : http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html and Open Source Software: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php come up with condition which would make some software Free Software but not Open Source software.
Did I ever claim that there are conditions in Open Source definitions that restricts a license from being labelled Free Software.Even if
No you did not, and I feel they are none. Rather Open Source definitions are less strict.
Looking at the definitions of both free software and open source software, I feel that all free software is subset of open source software.
Just because some licenses are not OSI certified or don't appear in some list does not invalidate the above statement. As you were saying, they might be not be OSI certified because no one was interested in getting them certified.
there is one I don't know because I'm too novice to understand intricacies of the definition and various licensing terms. Quoting from the article:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
"The official definition of ``open source software,'' as published by the Open Source Initiative, is very close to our definition of free software; however, it is a little looser in some respects, and they have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive of the users. However, the obvious meaning for the expression ``open source software'' is ``You can look at the source code.'' This is a much weaker criterion than free software; it includes free software, but also includes semi-free programs such as Xv, and even some proprietary programs, including Qt under its original license (before the QPL)."
I think the above paragraph answers most of the questions raised. Also, I think it gives one interpretation of "open source" software.
-Devendra Laulkar.
p.s. Why is this thread labelled OT ?