Baishampayan Ghose wrote:
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.
Open source in a broad term implies that you can look at the software under its hood. If the source is available, but not modifiable or re-distributable, it is still has an open source.
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.
He did not say FOSS.
Regards,
Rony.
___________________________________________________________ Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use" � The Wall Street Journal http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html