---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: Scilab Workshop Date: Friday 16 February 2007 13:52 From: Scilab Workshop scilab.workshop@iitb.ac.in To: Nagarjuna G nagarjun@gnowledge.org
Dear Dr. Nagarjuna, can you please post this news in appropriate fora? Thanks and regards. Kannan
--------------- IIT Bombay is organising a Scilab Workshop, jointly with the Scilab Development Team at INRIA, France. This Workshop will be conducted at IIT Bombay, during 7-8 March 2007. The details of this Workshop are available at http://ekalavya.it.iitb.ac.in/scilab_course.do. An announcement of this Workshop also appears prominently at the Home Page of Scilab, namely, www.scilab.org.
You may know that Scilab is a FREE software, having capabilities similar to the industry standard Matlab. We have adopted Scilab for several courses at IIT Bombay. We have found Scilab to be an attractive alternative to Matlab.
This Workshop will consist of introductory and advanced level talks on the use of Scilab. In addition, we plan to discuss strategies to take its use forward in India. We would also discuss whether it is possible to participate in the development of Scilab and how well to provide support to end users.
We can provide accommodation in our Guest House for those who register early. In case you have any question, please write to me at scilab.workshop@iitb.ac.in.
Thanks and best wishes.
Kannan Moudgalya
-------------------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Friday 16 February 2007 09:05 PM, Anurag cobbled together some glyphs to say:
This Workshop will consist of introductory and advanced level talks on the use of Scilab. In addition, we plan to discuss strategies to take its use forward in India. We would also discuss whether it is possible to participate in the development of Scilab and how well to provide support to end users.
Scilab is neither a Free Software nor an Open Source Software, since it doesn't allow commercial distribution of a modified version. It's wrong for the organisers to create a confusion among the people by making such false claims. For numerical computations, I would recommend GNU Octave as an alternative to MATLAB & Scilab.
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
On 2/16/07, Baishampayan Ghose b.ghose@ubuntu.com wrote:
Scilab is neither a Free Software nor an Open Source Software, since it doesn't allow commercial distribution of a modified version. It's wrong for the organisers to create a confusion among the people by making such false claims.
site clearly says that their license does not comply with FSF
http://www.scilab.org/legal/index_legal.php?page=faq.html#q6
but the software can be categorized as open source s/w.
Harsh
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Friday 16 February 2007 10:55 PM, Harsh Busa cobbled together some glyphs to say:
On 2/16/07, Baishampayan Ghose b.ghose@ubuntu.com wrote:
Scilab is neither a Free Software nor an Open Source Software, since it doesn't allow commercial distribution of a modified version. It's wrong for the organisers to create a confusion among the people by making such false claims.
site clearly says that their license does not comply with FSF
http://www.scilab.org/legal/index_legal.php?page=faq.html#q6
but the software can be categorized as open source s/w.
It's not even ``Open Source''. Please read the Open Source Definition http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php.
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
It's not even ``Open Source''. Please read the Open Source Definition http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php.
ok
On 16-Feb-07, at 11:15 PM, Baishampayan Ghose wrote:
http://www.scilab.org/legal/index_legal.php?page=faq.html#q6
but the software can be categorized as open source s/w.
It's not even ``Open Source''. Please read the Open Source Definition http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php.
but the source is available - so far better than matlab. God save us from purists
On 16-Feb-07, at 9:59 PM, Baishampayan Ghose wrote:
Scilab is neither a Free Software nor an Open Source Software, since it doesn't allow commercial distribution of a modified version
it is open source. however the license is not recognised by OSI - and scilab makes this very clear on its own web site
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Saturday 17 February 2007 10:17 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves cobbled together some glyphs to say:
Scilab is neither a Free Software nor an Open Source Software, since it doesn't allow commercial distribution of a modified version
it is open source. however the license is not recognised by OSI - and scilab makes this very clear on its own web site
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 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.
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
On 17-Feb-07, at 12:51 PM, Baishampayan Ghose wrote:
it is open source. however the license is not recognised by OSI - and scilab makes this very clear on its own web site
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.
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.
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
-----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
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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Saturday 17 February 2007 02:03 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves cobbled together some glyphs to say:
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
Oh, so FOSS is different from OSS? I thought FOSS was simply a way to combine the words Free Software (FS) and Open Source Software (OSS) to say Free & Open Source Software (FOSS). If you go by the definition, then FS is not different from OSS. So basically all FS is OSS and vice versa (except a *very few* which are not). But I guess I was wrong ...
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
On 17-Feb-07, at 2:06 PM, Baishampayan Ghose wrote:
who is talking about FOSS? I said I consider it Open Source Software - OSS
Oh, so FOSS is different from OSS?
yes
I thought FOSS was simply a way to combine the words Free Software (FS) and Open Source Software (OSS) to say Free & Open Source Software (FOSS).
no
If you go by the definition, then FS is not different from OSS. So basically all FS is OSS and vice versa (except a *very few* which are not).
all FS is OSS, but not all OSS is FS
But I guess I was wrong ..
yes
On 2/17/07, Baishampayan Ghose b.ghose@ubuntu.com wrote:
who is talking about FOSS? I said I consider it Open Source Software - OSS
Oh, so FOSS is different from OSS? I thought FOSS was simply a way to
yes now u need some home work :-) ( disclaimer : no flame intended )-- __________________________ http://www.ebackend.com/blog
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Saturday 17 February 2007 03:03 PM, Harsh Busa cobbled together some glyphs to say:
who is talking about FOSS? I said I consider it Open Source Software
- OSS
Oh, so FOSS is different from OSS? I thought FOSS was simply a way to
yes now u need some home work :-) ( disclaimer : no flame intended )--
The thing is, Kenneth does not know what he is talking about. He has already contradicted himself in his mails. But then, I have better things to do than trying to convince someone who simply doesn't want to listen. :)
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
On 17-Feb-07, at 3:16 PM, Baishampayan Ghose wrote:
yes now u need some home work :-) ( disclaimer : no flame intended )--
The thing is, Kenneth does not know what he is talking about. He has already contradicted himself in his mails. But then, I have better things to do than trying to convince someone who simply doesn't want to listen. :)
typical - loose an argument, throw mud and run away
Baishampayan Ghose wrote:
Oh, so FOSS is different from OSS? I thought FOSS was simply a way to combine the words Free Software (FS) and Open Source Software (OSS) to say Free & Open Source Software (FOSS). If you go by the definition, then FS is not different from OSS. So basically all FS is OSS and vice versa (except a *very few* which are not). But I guess I was wrong ...
Free software has the 4 freedoms. OSS may not have the 4 freedoms. That's why Free software is refered to as 'Libre' software and I heard the FSF chief use this term in his speech too at TIFR.
Regards,
Rony.
___________________________________________________________ All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
Rony wrote:
That's why Free software is refered to as 'Libre' software and I heard the FSF chief use this term in his speech too at TIFR.
libre == free in french OR was it italian OR spanish?? f*** it!! libre is just 'free' in a different language.. you could call it 'fookat' software if you choose to.. btw whats the correct word for 'fookat' in pure hindi??
Dhawal Doshy wrote:
Rony wrote:
That's why Free software is refered to as 'Libre' software and I heard the FSF chief use this term in his speech too at TIFR.
libre == free in french OR was it italian OR spanish?? f*** it!! libre is just 'free' in a different language.. you could call it 'fookat' software if you choose to.. btw whats the correct word for 'fookat' in pure hindi??
s/free/freedom/ (printing mistake ;-) )
Dhawal Doshy wrote:
Dhawal Doshy wrote:
Rony wrote:
That's why Free software is refered to as 'Libre' software and I heard the FSF chief use this term in his speech too at TIFR.
libre == free in french OR was it italian OR spanish?? f*** it!! libre is just 'free' in a different language.. you could call it 'fookat' software if you choose to.. btw whats the correct word for 'fookat' in pure hindi??
s/free/freedom/ (printing mistake ;-) )
crazy!! enter 'vi last_sent_email' press 'dd' to delete stupidity.. ':wq'
Dhawal Doshy wrote:
Dhawal Doshy wrote:
Dhawal Doshy wrote:
Rony wrote:
That's why Free software is refered to as 'Libre' software and I heard the FSF chief use this term in his speech too at TIFR.
libre == free in french OR was it italian OR spanish?? f*** it!! libre is just 'free' in a different language.. you could call it 'fookat' software if you choose to.. btw whats the correct word for 'fookat' in pure hindi??
s/free/freedom/ (printing mistake ;-) )
crazy!! enter 'vi last_sent_email' press 'dd' to delete stupidity.. ':wq'
*THREAD HIJACKING* *better than meaningless argument* *THREAD HIJACKING*
I love Linus.. here is a recent quote from him.
'Now the question is, will people take the patches, or will they keep their heads up their arses and claim that configurability is bad, even when it makes things more logical, and code more readable.'
The context is that Linus has submitted some patches to GNOME and is waiting for their response..
*THREAD HIJACKING* *about who can piss highest* *THREAD HIJACKING*
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Saturday 17 February 2007 09:05 PM, Dhawal Doshy cobbled together some glyphs to say:
Rony wrote:
That's why Free software is refered to as 'Libre' software and I heard the FSF chief use this term in his speech too at TIFR.
libre == free in french OR was it italian OR spanish?? f*** it!! libre is just 'free' in a different language.. you could call it 'fookat' software if you choose to.. btw whats the correct word for 'fookat' in pure hindi??
Libre in Spanish means ``Free as in Freedom'' (Swatantra or Mukt in Hindi). The Spanish for ``Fookat'' would be Gratis. The correct word for Gratis in Hindi would be Muft or Binamulya.
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
Baishampayan Ghose wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Saturday 17 February 2007 09:05 PM, Dhawal Doshy cobbled together some glyphs to say:
Rony wrote:
That's why Free software is refered to as 'Libre' software and I heard the FSF chief use this term in his speech too at TIFR.
libre == free in french OR was it italian OR spanish?? f*** it!! libre is just 'free' in a different language.. you could call it 'fookat' software if you choose to.. btw whats the correct word for 'fookat' in pure hindi??
Libre in Spanish means ``Free as in Freedom'' (Swatantra or Mukt in Hindi). The Spanish for ``Fookat'' would be Gratis. The correct word for Gratis in Hindi would be Muft or Binamulya.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/libre has a different take on libre.
Also hindi was never a strong point for me (and most bombay/mumbai junta).. bambaiya, a bad mix of more urdu less hindi is..
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 21:05:33 +0530, Dhawal Doshy dhawal@netmagicsolutions.com said:
Rony wrote:
That's why Free software is refered to as 'Libre' software and I heard the FSF chief use this term in his speech too at TIFR.
libre == free in french OR was it italian OR spanish?? f*** it!! libre is just 'free' in a different language.. you could call it 'fookat' software if you choose to.. btw whats the correct word for 'fookat' in pure hindi??
No, fookat, or Gratis, or "free as in free beer" is not what free software is all a bout. Free software is about "free as in free speech". So free software is not no cost software; it is software that allows freedom to the broader community of free software folks.
Without the freedom, all you have is disclosed source. Not free or open source.
Visible source is a required, but not sufficient, characteristic of Free or Open Source Software.
manoj
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 21:05:33 +0530, Dhawal Doshy dhawal@netmagicsolutions.com said:
Rony wrote:
That's why Free software is refered to as 'Libre' software and I heard the FSF chief use this term in his speech too at TIFR.
libre == free in french OR was it italian OR spanish?? f*** it!! libre is just 'free' in a different language.. you could call it 'fookat' software if you choose to.. btw whats the correct word for 'fookat' in pure hindi??
No, fookat, or Gratis, or "free as in free beer" is not whatfree software is all a bout. Free software is about "free as in free speech". So free software is not no cost software; it is software that allows freedom to the broader community of free software folks.
Without the freedom, all you have is disclosed source. Notfree or open source.
Visible source is a required, but not sufficient,characteristic of Free or Open Source Software.
i am not debating the meaning of 'free software'.. i am debating the line "That's why Free software is refered to as 'Libre' software". Libre means free/fookat/muft and can be used as such.
On 17-Feb-07, at 9:05 PM, Dhawal Doshy wrote:
libre == free in french OR was it italian OR spanish?? f*** it!! libre is just 'free' in a different language.. you could call it 'fookat' software if you choose to.. btw whats the correct word for 'fookat' in pure hindi??
the word libre is used to qualify the word 'free' which means two things in the english language - both freedom and without cost. This problem does not arise in indian languages - without cost == ilavasam and freedom == suthanantharam
Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 17-Feb-07, at 9:05 PM, Dhawal Doshy wrote:
libre == free in french OR was it italian OR spanish?? f*** it!! libre is just 'free' in a different language.. you could call it 'fookat' software if you choose to.. btw whats the correct word for 'fookat' in pure hindi??
the word libre is used to qualify the word 'free' which means two things in the english language - both freedom and without cost. This problem does not arise in indian languages - without cost == ilavasam and freedom == suthanantharam
damn!! should have opted for sanskrit over french..
On 19-Feb-07, at 2:14 PM, Dhawal Doshy wrote:
suthanantharam
damn!! should have opted for sanskrit over french..
thamizh
Sometime on Feb 17, Dhawal Doshy assembled some asciibets to say:
libre == free in french OR was it italian OR spanish?? f*** it!! libre is just 'free' in a different language.. you could call it 'fookat' software if you choose to.. btw whats the correct word for 'fookat' in pure hindi??
libre != fookat.
libre = free in the liberty sense (french derived from latin) fookat = free in the monetary sense (muft in pure hindi)
What you really want is "mukt" or "azad"
Hi, There have been great discussions regarding "software A" not satisfying "clause B" of GPL and hence should not be used. Scilab discussion reflects the same view but the open source community will appreciate more if someone says , "this is a software developed by us which provides more features than Matlab ( or Scilab ) , satisifies all clauses of GPL ( or any other licenses which you like ) and is totally reliable.
To me it looks like the open source community in India is moving on the lines of Indian IT industry.There is more hype than substance . Despite employee strengths touching 80000 in some big sofware giants, no Indian company is ready to look beyond outsourcing . They are not ready to come up with their own solutions -- be it products or services .Their world is centered about offering sevices ( an euphemism for labour ) to their clients . Indian software giants claim to have clients from the fortune 500 companies like M$ .Those of you who have worked there know that work carried by our companies is not of strategic importance to these fortune 500 companies.
Let us ensure that the same thing does not happen to the believers of open source. It is always easy to believe in a philosophy but what is more important that you implement it.
Pradeepto Bhattacharya wrote:
Since I am in a argumentive mood, lets say a company requires huge lot numerical calculations for their project? Loads of them. And this project will make or break them. They find that MatLab does everything for them. SciLab comes close but many crucial features are missing in GNU Octave. What would they do? Not use the first two since you advised against it. (Lets assume that they hired you as consultant by paying loads of $$$.) So you take their money as fees and tell them not possible because they can't use Mat/SciLab and Octave doesn't worky. One solution is they add all the features to Octave and then use it. Now that's an ok advise but in real world there are deadlines which they will (surely) miss because they started buidling bricks inhouse instead of making the house.
I agree with him . Open source is not the only thing which makes a good software ; software quality is equally important . However , at the same time , I would like to say that open source philosophy can be used as an effective tool for the development of the nation.
Long before the open source pundits were born Rabindra Nath Tagore had written :
Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high; Where knowledge is free; Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls; ... Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit; ... Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake. --- Rabindra Nath Tagore
That is my idea of open source --- a free and liberated society.
Regards, Sourabh
On 18/02/07 14:05 +0530, saurabh daptardar wrote: <snip>
with their own solutions -- be it products or services .Their world is centered about offering sevices ( an euphemism for labour ) to their
Nothing wrong with offering development services. The issue we have is with calling that a high tech job.
Devdas Bhagat
On 2/18/07, saurabh daptardar saurabh.daptardar@gmail.com wrote:
To me it looks like the open source community in India is moving on the lines of Indian IT industry.There is more hype than substance . Despite employee strengths touching 80000 in some big sofware giants, no Indian company is ready to look beyond outsourcing . They are not ready to come up
There's a cool article in the Times of India today titled 'A Myth called the Indian Programmer'. That article, in many ways gives you a reason why the 80,000 really won't get you anywhere with respect to innovation and technical expertise.
The FOSS community in India doesn't seem to be very big. And even among them, very few actually contribute to anything other than mailing lists.
with their own solutions -- be it products or services .Their world is centered about offering sevices ( an euphemism for labour ) to their clients . Indian software giants claim to have clients from the fortune
Most of the service providers (TCS, Infy, etc) do have their own products. They're not visible to us because they're mainly enterprise systems. Of course, these are not high tech solutions. They can't afford them for obvious reasons (lack of skilled 'labour').
Let us ensure that the same thing does not happen to the believers of open source. It is always easy to believe in a philosophy but what is more important that you implement it.
The believers are doing something about it in their own ways. Again, much of it may not be visible unless you decide to look.
Regards,
On 18-Feb-07, at 4:40 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
The FOSS community in India doesn't seem to be very big. And even among them, very few actually contribute to anything other than mailing lists.
a suprisingly large number of the serious developers never join local mailing lists
with their own solutions -- be it products or services .Their world is centered about offering sevices ( an euphemism for labour ) to their clients . Indian software giants claim to have clients from the fortune
Most of the service providers (TCS, Infy, etc) do have their own products.
name one
On 2/18/07, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
name one
Finacle, Assent, Tradex, MasterCraft, Flexcube.
On 18-Feb-07, at 10:38 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
Finacle, Assent, Tradex, MasterCraft, Flexcube.
Flexcube - Oracle global on the site, so is this infosys or tcs? finacle - infosys assent infrex consult tradex - tcs
looks like tcs has some products going - never would have believed it.
Philip Tellis wrote:
Sometime on Feb 17, Dhawal Doshy assembled some asciibets to say:
libre == free in french OR was it italian OR spanish?? f*** it!! libre is just 'free' in a different language.. you could call it 'fookat' software if you choose to.. btw whats the correct word for 'fookat' in pure hindi??
libre != fookat.
nopes libre == fookat
libre = free in the liberty sense (french derived from latin)
This is your interpretation.
fookat = free in the monetary sense (muft in pure hindi)
btw, muft is urdu.
What you really want is "mukt" or "azad"
True.. but libre == fookat..
On Monday 19 Feb 2007 14:11:51 Dhawal Doshy wrote:
Philip Tellis wrote:
Sometime on Feb 17, Dhawal Doshy assembled some asciibets to say:
libre == free in french OR was it italian OR spanish?? f*** it!! libre is just 'free' in a different language.. you could call it 'fookat' software if you choose to.. btw whats the correct word for 'fookat' in pure hindi??
libre != fookat.
nopes libre == fookat
libre = free in the liberty sense (french derived from latin)
This is your interpretation.
fookat = free in the monetary sense (muft in pure hindi)
btw, muft is urdu.
What you really want is "mukt" or "azad"
True.. but libre == fookat..
Uhhh, no Philip is correct.
libre = free as in freedom, not free as in cost
Said to me by a friend of mine who knows French and hasn't heard of Linux.
On 2/19/07, Mrugesh Karnik mrugeshkarnik@gmail.com wrote:
Uhhh, no Philip is correct.
libre = free as in freedom, not free as in cost
Said to me by a friend of mine who knows French and hasn't heard of Linux.
I also thought so far libre is freedom, though I know zero french. Also, Wikipedia says libre means freedom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_as_in_beer
Hi
On 2/19/07, Mrugesh Karnik mrugeshkarnik@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday 19 Feb 2007 14:11:51 Dhawal Doshy wrote:
True.. but libre == fookat..
Uhhh, no Philip is correct.
libre = free as in freedom, not free as in cost
Said to me by a friend of mine who knows French and hasn't heard of Linux.
Right! Its derived from ... French liberté = Latin libertas == freedom "logiciels libres" = free software ( French )
Cheers!
Pradeepto
Pradeepto Bhattacharya wrote:
Hi
On 2/19/07, Mrugesh Karnik mrugeshkarnik@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday 19 Feb 2007 14:11:51 Dhawal Doshy wrote:
True.. but libre == fookat..
Uhhh, no Philip is correct.
libre = free as in freedom, not free as in cost
Said to me by a friend of mine who knows French and hasn't heard of Linux.
Right! Its derived from ... French liberté = Latin libertas == freedom "logiciels libres" = free software ( French )
Wrong!! libre == free.. also liberté != libre though they have common roots in Latin.
On Monday 19 Feb 2007 16:54:33 Dhawal Doshy wrote:
Pradeepto Bhattacharya wrote:
Hi
On 2/19/07, Mrugesh Karnik mrugeshkarnik@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday 19 Feb 2007 14:11:51 Dhawal Doshy wrote:
True.. but libre == fookat..
Uhhh, no Philip is correct.
libre = free as in freedom, not free as in cost
Said to me by a friend of mine who knows French and hasn't heard of Linux.
Right! Its derived from ... French liberté = Latin libertas == freedom "logiciels libres" = free software ( French )Wrong!! libre == free.. also liberté != libre though they have common roots in Latin.
Dude where do you think the word `liberty' and its meaning comes from?
Hi,
On Monday 19 Feb 2007 16:54:33 Dhawal Doshy wrote:
Pradeepto Bhattacharya wrote:
Hi
On 2/19/07, Mrugesh Karnik mrugeshkarnik@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday 19 Feb 2007 14:11:51 Dhawal Doshy wrote:
True.. but libre == fookat..
Uhhh, no Philip is correct.
libre = free as in freedom, not free as in cost
Said to me by a friend of mine who knows French and hasn't heard of Linux.
Right! Its derived from ... French liberté = Latin libertas == freedom "logiciels libres" = free software ( French )Wrong!! libre == free.. also liberté != libre though they have common roots in Latin.
*sigh*. Sure I am wrong and so is the *french native* I asked this question. Perhaps he was learning some other language since last 30 years somewhere in Cheval Blanc, France. He also said - logiciel is a made-up word, which starts with "logic" and ends like "matériel" (hardware). ( but what the hell does he know? He's just a french by birth. )
I wanted to reply earlier but Philip and Mrugesh had already replied. But you displayed weird sense of humour ( confer that stupid hsc joke, whatever it meant ), I thought I should reply.
Btw, you quoted some links. Did you even bother to read them before posting. It had many meanings of Libre like ...
Principal Translations: libre (pas occupé) adj free (not occupied) libre (chambre) adj vacant (room)
marché libre open market ( note open market and not fukat/help-your-self-its-free-market)
zone de libre-échange nf free trade area monde libre nm free world nage libre free-swimming nation libre nf free nation né libre freeborn cité libre nf free city ....... many such meanings.
Nowhere it's mentioned free-of-charge. The word money,paid,charge doesnot appear on that page.
Also you mention babelfish translation site, imho, translational tools are not perfect (yet).
Cheers!
Pradeepto
Pradeepto Bhattacharya wrote:
Btw, you quoted some links. Did you even bother to readthem before posting. It had many meanings of Libre like ...
In that case read this one.. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/libre
# free, without obligation temps libre — free time
Note that it doesn't expand obligation.. obligation could be monetary as well..
Also in latin http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/liber
liber simply means free.. in what context is NOT specified.
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:13:39 +0530, Dhawal Doshy dhawal@netmagicsolutions.com said:
Pradeepto Bhattacharya wrote:
Btw, you quoted some links. Did you even bother to read them before posting. It had many meanings of Libre like ...
In that case read this one.. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/libre
free, without obligation
temps libre — free time
Note that it doesn't expand obligation.. obligation could be monetary as well..
Also in latin http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/liber
liber simply means free.. in what context is NOT specified.
When you specify the context, especially for the free software community, you get this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libre#Libre
You are not speaking latin here. You are using a word from a romance language to refer to a commonly accepted designation in the software community, and i this specialized context, libre has to do with liberty, and free as in free speech; as opposed to gratis, which is hte free beer sense you are looking for.
Now, you can continue to jam your fingers in your ears and tells us "nyah, nyah, I am not heeearing youuuu", but you'll just look silly in the broader free software community if you go around telling people that libre software refers to free as in beer.
We are talking about concepts and philosophy that has been well established, been around for decades, and is commonly accepted by an international community numbering in the millions. You might be wholly ignorant of the philosophy or the broad understanding, but trust me, you hgave arrived on the scene far too late to dicate what the acronym FLOSS expands to and means.
People have been trying nicely to tell you what the commonly accepted meaning of the term is. You might want to persist in your contrary stance, and if so, I wash my hands of it -- there are better ways to spend our time. But could you please take the trolling about Libre off line now?
manoj
Dhawal Doshy wrote:
Pradeepto Bhattacharya wrote:
Hi
On 2/19/07, Mrugesh Karnik mrugeshkarnik@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday 19 Feb 2007 14:11:51 Dhawal Doshy wrote:
True.. but libre == fookat..
Uhhh, no Philip is correct.
libre = free as in freedom, not free as in cost
Said to me by a friend of mine who knows French and hasn't heard of Linux.
Right! Its derived from ... French liberté = Latin libertas == freedom "logiciels libres" = free software ( French )Wrong!! libre == free.. also liberté != libre though they have common roots in Latin.
Could you form a sentence that uses the word libre for free and states "This book is available free of cost" in French?
Regards,
Rony.
___________________________________________________________ The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
Mrugesh Karnik wrote:
On Monday 19 Feb 2007 14:11:51 Dhawal Doshy wrote:
Philip Tellis wrote:
Sometime on Feb 17, Dhawal Doshy assembled some asciibets to say:
libre == free in french OR was it italian OR spanish?? f*** it!! libre is just 'free' in a different language.. you could call it 'fookat' software if you choose to.. btw whats the correct word for 'fookat' in pure hindi??
libre != fookat.
nopes libre == fookat
libre = free in the liberty sense (french derived from latin)
This is your interpretation.
fookat = free in the monetary sense (muft in pure hindi)
btw, muft is urdu.
What you really want is "mukt" or "azad"
True.. but libre == fookat..
Uhhh, no Philip is correct.
libre = free as in freedom, not free as in cost
Said to me by a friend of mine who knows French and hasn't heard of Linux.
Nopes.. google for 'french to english dictionary'.. http://www.wordreference.com/fren/libre
Also try http://babelfish.altavista.com/
Also try google language tools.. http://www.google.co.in/language_tools?hl=en
Sometime Today, DD cobbled together some glyphs to say:
Said to me by a friend of mine who knows French and hasn't heard of Linux.
Nopes.. google for 'french to english dictionary'.. http://www.wordreference.com/fren/libre
Try me. I speak french.
libre means free in the liberty/liberated sense (free from worry, free from attachment, free from bondage, etc.)
Philip Tellis wrote:
Sometime Today, DD cobbled together some glyphs to say:
Said to me by a friend of mine who knows French and hasn't heard of Linux.
Nopes.. google for 'french to english dictionary'.. http://www.wordreference.com/fren/libre
Try me. I speak french.
libre means free in the liberty/liberated sense (free from worry, free from attachment, free from bondage, etc.)
No way i continue to be right!!! i have my hands on my ears / eyes and am shouting to myself "na nana na nah".. "na nana na nah".. "na nana na nah" (also means I own the 'bat' and the game is over if i am ruled out)..
anyways 38/100 (hsc) is not considered good enough in French. sheesh..
Sometime Today, DD cobbled together some glyphs to say:
anyways 38/100 (hsc) is not considered good enough in French. sheesh..
who got 38/100 in HSC French? I didn't do French at HSC.
On 2/19/07, Dhawal Doshy dhawal@netmagicsolutions.com wrote:
Nopes.. google for 'french to english dictionary'.. http://www.wordreference.com/fren/libre
I see freedom there. Open is also there. But free of cost if suspiciously missing in the list. BTW, what happened to original topic?
BTW, what happened to original topic?
Are you new here? Very few rare mail's retain their content based on the original topic, there are those which are off topic and there are those which have no business being mails in the first place, but have been spawned so by their authors for various reasons often best known to themselves. A good example would be a certain mail inquiring about shaving cream brands :-)
Regards,
- vihan
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:11:51 +0530, Dhawal Doshy dhawal@netmagicsolutions.com said:
Philip Tellis wrote:
Sometime on Feb 17, Dhawal Doshy assembled some asciibets to say:
libre == free in french OR was it italian OR spanish?? f*** it!! libre is just 'free' in a different language.. you could call it fookat' software if you choose to.. btw whats the correct word for fookat' in pure hindi??
libre != fookat.
nopes libre == fookat
Hell no. Libre has to do with liberty, not no cost.
libre = free in the liberty sense (french derived from latin)
This is your interpretation.
It is the interpretation of most people, including the Spaniards on the #debian-devel channel that I asked.
fookat = free in the monetary sense (muft in pure hindi)
btw, muft is urdu.
What you really want is "mukt" or "azad"
True.. but libre == fookat..
Wrong again.
manoj
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
On Saturday 17 February 2007 13:37, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 17-Feb-07, at 12:51 PM, Baishampayan Ghose wrote:
it is open source. however the license is not recognised by OSI
- and scilab makes this very clear on its own web site
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.
*I* consider it OSS - and I have the freedom to do so.
Amen. Even if the reasoning does not stand?
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
The licence is strange to say the least. You can use and distribute commercially, subject to the advertising clause, the original software. But you cannot distribute commercially if you derive or composite it with anything else. However uou can distribute if u do not charge. The worst problem with closed software is preventing the spread and growth of knowledge. This licence does prevent, even if the restriction is against a very tiny minority. Shades of amateur versus professional sportsman. Wasn't it another frenchman who condemned several generations of sports persons to abject poverty? Any way the author of the licence must be laughing over his wine looking at people trying to make sense of this one.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 13:37:30 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves said:
On 17-Feb-07, at 12:51 PM, Baishampayan Ghose wrote:
it is open source. however the license is not recognised by OSI - and scilab makes this very clear on its own web site
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.
The source might be visible, but by no means is it open. Openness requires the ability to modify and distribute the results -- which is not present.
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.
You can call it Steak, too -- but redefining commonly accepted terms to something only you know the definition of does not help in communication.
manoj
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 acceptedterms 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. For an analogy, look at this one:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/
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
Sometime Today, Manoj Srivastava assembled some asciibets to say:
You may feel like you want it to be Steak too -- but OSS has awell defined meaning in the community, and espescially on a linux
It's a de facto meaning, not a de jeure meaning. All de facto meanings are open to interpretation.
Hi,
On 2/18/07, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
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 acceptedterms 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. For an analogy, look at this one:
Analogy is not convinicing enough. Creative Commons licenses were not created keeping only software freedom in mind. It had wider scope of including audios, videos, photos, etc too. Having said that I would like to point out that the above referenced license is neither Free Software license nor Open Source license. To understand why Lawrence Lessig chose to include such a license, please spare some bandwidth & time to download and listen to this presentation given by him at 23rd Chaos Communication Congress.
http://dewy.fem.tu-ilmenau.de/CCC/23C3/video/23C3-1760-en-on_free.m4v
Regards Nikhil Prabhakar
-
Anurag -
Baishampayan Ghose -
Devdas Bhagat -
Dhawal Doshy -
Harsh Busa -
jtd -
Kenneth Gonsalves -
Manoj Srivastava -
mehul -
Mrugesh Karnik -
nipra -
Philip Tellis -
Pradeepto Bhattacharya -
Rony -
saurabh daptardar -
Siddhesh Poyarekar -
Vihan Pandey