On 17-Feb-07, at 1:43 PM, Baishampayan Ghose wrote:
I can see that you are arguing just for the sake of arguing.
no
Let me repeat -- the sheer availability of the source doesn't make a software FOSS. Commercial modifications are an important part of all FOSS.
who is talking about FOSS? I said I consider it Open Source Software - OSS
You are free to consider it as whatever you want,
thanks
but at the same time, I am free, nay entitled to reject your [mis]interpretation with equal disdain.
cool - go ahead
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.
that is why I feel sorry for you
What you need to understand is that FOSS is not just about the availability of the source code. It never was.
we are not talking about FOSS here