last I heard you were programming zope
Well that is not the only thing I program, if that makes any difference.
- why dont you stick to GPL'd software
Why should I do so? As far as I am concerned, Zope and Python are both released under free software licenses. The GPL is not the only free software license around. Here is something for you: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
has brought a huge amount of software to be available to the public, which would have never happened if the FOSS movement had been left in the hands of narrow-minded fanatics. The OSS movement started here:
Is it? I do not think so; and I do not trust you. Recently I heard some people give talks.
a. Dr. D.B. Phatak. Loves BSD; hates GPL. b. Someone from KreSit (forgot his name), who is close to 'a'. c. Chap from OSSRC, CDAC, Mumbai. d. Mathias Klang. Creative Commons Sweden, Lead
Person 'a' started off by expressing his hatred about GPL and expressed his love for BSD. He gave a nice presentation too. The presentation was in Windows.
Person 'b' spoke about the efforts of KreSit to promote Open Source, and he used MacOS, even after I personnally offered him a free alternative.
Person 'c' spoke about how CDAC is championing Open Source and writing a text to speech front-end for Pine. Why not Mutt? Pine is non-free, but I am not sure about the Open Sourceness of the thing. Hence I can not say anything. Even then. Why not Mutt? GNU did not write Mutt.
Person 'd' again went for his MacOS. Reason being OpenOffice.org could not render his presentation made in Powerpoint. The problem with Creative Commons is that its chief says Free Software and GPL has does not have the concept of copyright. That is nonsense. Isn't it?
Hence I can no more trust someone who champions Open Source and pretends to work for software freedom.
with attendance from people like Linus Torvalds (Linux kernel), Steve Allman (Sendmail), Guido von Rossum (Python), Eric Raymond (Fetchmail)
So what? FSF/GNU does recognise Linus Torvalds for the Linux kernel. The only problem is that he is not much bothered about sofware freedom. Did you hear the BitKeeper story?
Eric Raymond has his name in GNU's Who (http://www.gnu.org/people/people.html). He has had his share of appreciation too.
Why dont they stick the GPL'd stuff?
Why should they? The programs you mentioned are all Free Software.
So I suggest you guys stop persecuting scilab and concentrate on stating some policy on what you call 'web services' - all the proprietary software from google, yahoo et al which you are happily using because there is no fatwa from FSF in this regard.
Are you helping the drafting of GPLv3? Or are you just sitting and lecturing? Back when the GPL was written, Open Source did not even exist.
Why only 'web services'? What about Tivoisation? Are the Open Source champions doing something about it? Bruce Perens publicly urged the Linux kernel hackers to embrace GPLv3, and supported Stallman's view on this on lwn.net. Bruce Perens is the chap who wrote the Open Source Definition. In that same article he also stresses the need to start talking about software freedom once again. Where is Mr. Torvalds?
Regards, Debarshi
Hi
On 2/18/07, Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray debarshi.ray@gmail.com wrote:
Huh???? Now, what happened? You are done with your coding? And you are back to arguing? Didn't you just say a while back that you better be coding instead of coding. I did some math ( I suck at it anyways, but still ). This reply of yours to Kenneth's post was ~2.4Kb in size .
You could have coded instead. No?
Pradeepto
On 18-Feb-07, at 1:14 AM, Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray wrote:
- why dont you stick to GPL'd software
Why should I do so? As far as I am concerned, Zope and Python are both released under free software licenses. The GPL is not the only free software license around. Here is something for you: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
ever heard of the tail attempting to wag the dog? This is an apt description of the FS movement. The OSS movement started as a reaction to the extremism of the FS movement and conciously decided to remove the 'F' in an attempt to reach a wider audience - and they succeeded. So the FS movement, unable to prevent this, attempts to hitch themselves to it by rechristening it as Free Software. Zope and Python and Postgres and Apache and thousands of others do *not* consider themselves Free Software. They consider themselves OSS. Similarly, the only Linux that considers itself GNU/Linux is Debian. All the other distros consider themselves Linux. Time you guys got real and respected the opinions of others.
has brought a huge amount of software to be available to the public, which would have never happened if the FOSS movement had been left in the hands of narrow-minded fanatics. The OSS movement started here:
Is it? I do not think so; and I do not trust you. Recently I heard some people give talks.
a. Dr. D.B. Phatak. Loves BSD; hates GPL. b. Someone from KreSit (forgot his name), who is close to 'a'. c. Chap from OSSRC, CDAC, Mumbai. d. Mathias Klang. Creative Commons Sweden, Lead
Person 'a' started off by expressing his hatred about GPL and expressed his love for BSD. He gave a nice presentation too. The presentation was in Windows.
Person 'b' spoke about the efforts of KreSit to promote Open Source, and he used MacOS, even after I personnally offered him a free alternative.
Person 'c' spoke about how CDAC is championing Open Source and writing a text to speech front-end for Pine. Why not Mutt? Pine is non-free, but I am not sure about the Open Sourceness of the thing. Hence I can not say anything. Even then. Why not Mutt? GNU did not write Mutt.
Person 'd' again went for his MacOS. Reason being OpenOffice.org could not render his presentation made in Powerpoint. The problem with Creative Commons is that its chief says Free Software and GPL has does not have the concept of copyright. That is nonsense. Isn't it?
Hence I can no more trust someone who champions Open Source and pretends to work for software freedom.
LOL - you invited them - you took their money and support for the meeting. Dont tell me you didnt know their stand and philosophy before you did? And none or the gentlemen named above either has a clue as to what is open source software nor do they champion it. Get your facts right.
with attendance from people like Linus Torvalds (Linux kernel), Steve Allman (Sendmail), Guido von Rossum (Python), Eric Raymond (Fetchmail)
So what? FSF/GNU does recognise Linus Torvalds for the Linux kernel. The only problem is that he is not much bothered about sofware freedom. Did you hear the BitKeeper story?
I am sure Linus is thrilled at being recognised. I suggest, in view of the BitKeeper story, that you derecognise him
Eric Raymond has his name in GNU's Who (http://www.gnu.org/people/people.html). He has had his share of appreciation too.
I am sure he is also ecstatic
Why dont they stick the GPL'd stuff?
Why should they? The programs you mentioned are all Free Software.
they arent - they are OSS. Just calling them Free Software does not make them so.
So I suggest you guys stop persecuting scilab and concentrate on stating some policy on what you call 'web services' - all the proprietary software from google, yahoo et al which you are happily using because there is no fatwa from FSF in this regard.
Are you helping the drafting of GPLv3?
no. I have no interest in GPLv3 - I am strongly against the idea of having one comprehensive monolithical license that attempts to cover everything known and guard against everything that may arise. It is not possible, and is against the Open Source model of development. It is overengineering and, as Linus (remember he is *recognised*) overengineering is the main reason for the failure of Hurd. I believe in developing many licenses for particular situations in particular jurisdictions.
Or are you just sitting and lecturing? Back when the GPL was written, Open Source did not even exist.
Open Source came into existence as a reaction to the extremism of the FS movement
Why only 'web services'? What about Tivoisation? Are the Open Source champions doing something about it? Bruce Perens publicly urged the Linux kernel hackers to embrace GPLv3, and supported Stallman's view on this on lwn.net. Bruce Perens is the chap who wrote the Open Source Definition. In that same article he also stresses the need to start talking about software freedom once again. Where is Mr. Torvalds?
who needs him? you are there
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 08:08:05 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org said:
On 18-Feb-07, at 1:14 AM, Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray wrote:
- why dont you stick to GPL'd software
Why should I do so? As far as I am concerned, Zope and Python are both released under free software licenses. The GPL is not the only free software license around. Here is something for you: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
ever heard of the tail attempting to wag the dog? This is an apt description of the FS movement. The OSS movement started as a reaction to the extremism of the FS movement and conciously decided to remove the 'F' in an attempt to reach a wider audience - and they succeeded. So the FS movement, unable to prevent this, attempts to hitch themselves to it by rechristening it as Free Software. Zope and Python and Postgres and Apache and thousands of others do *not* consider themselves Free Software. They consider themselves OSS. Similarly, the only Linux that considers itself GNU/Linux is Debian. All the other distros consider themselves Linux. Time you guys got real and respected the opinions of others.
You are revising history here a bit. The OSS folks did not want to change the basic philosophy as much as market it to the suits better. Indeed, the open source definition started off as a close of the DFSG -- but the word "Free" was removed to make it more palatable to the business people.
They were careful to not actually change the requisite freedoms. And, really, I think most people do not consider hte software covered by the terms as distinct -- same software, different terms used by people to describe it, albeit with slightly different philosophical goals.
manoj who was there when the open source stuff was launched
On 18-Feb-07, at 11:37 AM, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
All the other distros consider themselves Linux. Time you guys got real and respected the opinions of others.
You are revising history here a bit. The OSS folks did notwant to change the basic philosophy as much as market it to the suits better. Indeed, the open source definition started off as a close of the DFSG -- but the word "Free" was removed to make it more palatable to the business people.
They were careful to not actually change the requisitefreedoms. And, really, I think most people do not consider hte software covered by the terms as distinct -- same software, different terms used by people to describe it, albeit with slightly different philosophical goals.
i would say the major difference is the absence of copyleft in OSS
Hi,
On 2/18/07, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
On 18-Feb-07, at 11:37 AM, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
All the other distros consider themselves Linux. Time you guys got real and respected the opinions of others.
You are revising history here a bit. The OSS folks did notwant to change the basic philosophy as much as market it to the suits better. Indeed, the open source definition started off as a close of the DFSG -- but the word "Free" was removed to make it more palatable to the business people.
They were careful to not actually change the requisitefreedoms. And, really, I think most people do not consider hte software covered by the terms as distinct -- same software, different terms used by people to describe it, albeit with slightly different philosophical goals.
i would say the major difference is the absence of copyleft in OSS
What OSS definition you are talking about? Yours? Or as defined by Open Source Initiative ? Or is it politically neutral enough to include the term Free as in Freedom?
Did you read what copyleft meant? Please stop spreading FUD and do some research before issuing such vague and confusing statements.
Copy- pasting from: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html
``Copyleft is a general method for making a program or other work free, and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well.''
Now I don't understand what it means to make a false claim that ``major difference is the absence of copyleft in OSS''. There might be some Open Source licenses that are not Free Software license or vice versa because the organisation behind them work independent of each other, have different goals and philosophies. Considering your statement, can I say that GNU GPL certified by Open Source Initiative as Open Source license or to be concise an OSS license is not copylefted. (Which is certainly false.) Please stop spreading FUD or do proper research before making such claims or go on redefining everything you seem to care about and advocate it with logic and philosophies pioneers of Free Software Movement have done with so much pain for last 24 years. For now I would like to ignore your all subsequent replies.
Regards Nikhil Prabhakar
On 18-Feb-07, at 12:16 PM, nipra wrote:
pain for last 24 years. For now I would like to ignore your all subsequent replies.
i thought of making an elaborate reply to what you said, but since anyway you are going to ignore my replies, I would like you to utilise the free time you get by doing this to investigating the statement, made, I think, by Stallman, that the GPL is subversive of copyright. I interpret this to be the crux of the concept of copyleft. Of course I am an idiot, have never read anything and am solely interested in spreading FUD, so dont take this too seriously.
Hi,
On 2/18/07, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
On 18-Feb-07, at 12:16 PM, nipra wrote:
pain for last 24 years. For now I would like to ignore your all subsequent replies.
i thought of making an elaborate reply to what you said, but since anyway you are going to ignore my replies, I would like you to utilise the free time you get by doing this to investigating the statement, made, I think, by Stallman, that the GPL is subversive of copyright. I interpret this to be the crux of the concept of copyleft. Of course I am an idiot, have never read anything and am solely interested in spreading FUD, so dont take this too seriously.
Sincere apologies for making offending and personal comments in my posts. Please post your reply. To clear the confusion, I would like to make it clear that Open Source software for me is a software released under a license approved by Open Source Initiative. I don't have any personal interpretation of Open Source software.
Regards Nikhil Prabhakar
On 18-Feb-07, at 10:18 PM, nipra wrote:
copyleft. Of course I am an idiot, have never read anything and am solely interested in spreading FUD, so dont take this too seriously.
Sincere apologies for making offending and personal comments in my posts. Please post your reply. To clear the confusion, I would like to make it clear that Open Source software for me is a software released under a license approved by Open Source Initiative. I don't have any personal interpretation of Open Source software.
i agree with you there - however I feel that this could be further diluted to cover the case of scilab. I feel this is far less hypocritical than the 'dual-license' model which for some strange reason is tolerated by the promoters of GPL. Classic case is mysql.
As for copyleft, I have always understood that the key element of the concept of copyleft is the 'contribute back' condition, whereby the ownership of the copyright gets spread. For example, in the case of the linux kernel, the copyright ownership is so widely spread that it has been practically subverted - which is the ultimate goal of copyleft. BSD style licenses do not have this condition - the whole copyright always vests with the original owner.
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 06:38:46 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org said:
On 18-Feb-07, at 10:18 PM, nipra wrote:
Sincere apologies for making offending and personal comments in my posts. Please post your reply. To clear the confusion, I would like to make it clear that Open Source software for me is a software released under a license approved by Open Source Initiative. I don't have any personal interpretation of Open Source software.
i agree with you there - however I feel that this could be further diluted to cover the case of scilab.
What is it that you feel can be diluted? If you are referring to the definition of OSS, then diluting that definition is not your call. And until the people who _can_ actually change the definition do so, scilab is not open source software -- and not free software either.
manoj
On 19-Feb-07, at 10:45 AM, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
i agree with you there - however I feel that this could be further diluted to cover the case of scilab.
What is it that you feel can be diluted? If you are referringto the definition of OSS, then diluting that definition is not your call.
i can ask - and am asking
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:34:04 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org said:
On 19-Feb-07, at 10:45 AM, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
i agree with you there - however I feel that this could be further diluted to cover the case of scilab.
What is it that you feel can be diluted? If you are referring to the definition of OSS, then diluting that definition is not your call.
i can ask - and am asking
You don't get a change in the definition for a specific software or license -- or, to put it another way, this has not been done, ever. What the OSI does is try and determine if a license meets the requirements of the unchanged definition, or not.
In this case, it is pretty clear that the license does not meet the definition -- and that is pretty much that.
manoj
nipra wrote:
Hi,
On 2/18/07, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
i would say the major difference is the absence of copyleft in OSS
What OSS definition you are talking about? Yours? Or as defined by Open Source Initiative ? Or is it politically neutral enough to include the term Free as in Freedom?
You are again mixing the term OSS with FOSS. OSS is not always Free OSS.
Did you read what copyleft meant? Please stop spreading FUD and do some research before issuing such vague and confusing statements.
Copy- pasting from: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html
``Copyleft is a general method for making a program or other work free, and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well.''
Now I don't understand what it means to make a false claim that ``major difference is the absence of copyleft in OSS''. [SNIP] For now I would like to ignore your all subsequent replies.
Again a mix-up of OSS and FOSS. It would be better to use 'Libre' for Free OSS and Open Source for OSS. Kenneth has very clearly explained his point, even mentioning in his earlier posts that the OSS licence of Scilab is not the recognized OSS license.
At the SELF conference in TIFR, a very good point was raised by the guest speakers that hoarding of knowledge is against the development of society and up-liftment of the weaker sections of society. That is why knowledge should be free. When I see the political situation in India and abroad and the way we disagree on this list, I feel that we still haven't understood the true meaning of freedom. Just as knowledge should not be hoarded, Freedom should not/never be hoarded. Freedom has to be shared, to be passed on to others. Give others the same freedom that we expect from them.
And let us throw flames at each other in the same spirit as we throw colours during Holi.
Regards,
Rony.
___________________________________________________________ Inbox full of spam? Get leading spam protection and 1GB storage with All New Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 20:19:32 +0530, Rony ronbillypop@yahoo.co.uk said:
You are again mixing the term OSS with FOSS. OSS is not always Free OSS.
You are making up your own terms. Open Source Software was a term defined by http://www.opensource.org/, and trhe definition there is the one commonly accepted in the community.
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
Defines redistribution as point 1. And this is the official definition of the term.
Again a mix-up of OSS and FOSS.
Rubbish. Even Wikipedia defines OSS as I am stating: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_software Open-source software is an antonym for closed source software and refers to any computer software whose source code is available under a license (or arrangement such as the public domain) that permits users to study, change, and improve the software, and to redistribute it in modified or unmodified form. It is often developed in a public, collaborative manner. It is the most prominent example of open source development and often compared to user generated content
It would be better to use 'Libre' for Free OSS and Open Source for OSS. Kenneth has very clearly explained his point, even mentioning in his earlier posts that the OSS licence of Scilab is not the recognized OSS license.
Not according to these sources: http://www.eifl.net/opensoft/soft.html -- electronic information for libraries http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/ What is open source software? Open source software is software released under an Open Source Initiative (OSI) certified licence...
Even the FSF acknowledges that open source and free software are the same software bits: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
What basis do you have for this gross misrepresentation of what OSS is? Can you cite any authoritative source for this? (I felt like making up my own meaning does not count)
manoj
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 20:19:32 +0530, Rony
You are making up your own terms. Open Source Software was aterm defined by http://www.opensource.org/, and trhe definition there is the one commonly accepted in the community.
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
Defines redistribution as point 1. And this is the officialdefinition of the term.
Read point 4 from that link and emphasis is added... "4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
The license *may* *restrict* source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.
Rationale: Encouraging lots of improvement is a good thing, but users have a right to know who is responsible for the software they are using. Authors and maintainers have reciprocal right to know what they're being asked to support and protect their reputations.
Accordingly, an open-source license must guarantee that source be readily available, but may require that it be distributed as pristine base sources plus patches. In this way, "unofficial" changes can be made available but readily distinguished from the base source."
Again a mix-up of OSS and FOSS.
Rubbish. Even Wikipedia defines OSS as I am stating:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_software Open-source software is an antonym for closed source software and refers to any computer software whose source code is available under a license (or arrangement such as the public domain) that permits users to study, change, and improve the software, and to redistribute it in modified or unmodified form. It is often developed in a public, collaborative manner. It is the most prominent example of open source development and often compared to user generated content
It would be better to use 'Libre' for Free OSS and Open Source for OSS. Kenneth has very clearly explained his point, even mentioning in his earlier posts that the OSS licence of Scilab is not the recognized OSS license.
Not according to these sources:http://www.eifl.net/opensoft/soft.html -- electronic information for libraries http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/ What is open source software? Open source software is software released under an Open Source Initiative (OSI) certified licence...
Even the FSF acknowledges that open source and free softwareare the same software bits: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
What made you think so?
What basis do you have for this gross misrepresentation ofwhat OSS is? Can you cite any authoritative source for this? (I felt like making up my own meaning does not count)
From the gnu link http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html that you posted.
"Free software. Open source. If it's the same software, does it matter which name you use? Yes, because different words convey different ideas. While a free program by any other name would give you the same freedom today, establishing freedom in a lasting way depends above all on teaching people to value freedom. If you want to help do this, it is essential to speak about “free software.”...... These are the words of Father Ignutius himself.
More from him in the same article.....
"The official definition of “open source software” (which is published by the Open Source Initiative and too long to cite here) was derived indirectly from our criteria for free software. It is not the same; it is a little looser in some respects, so open source supporters have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive of the users. Nonetheless, it is fairly close to our definition in practice."
"Some try to disparage the free software movement by comparing our disagreement with open source to the disagreements of those radical groups. They have it backwards. We disagree with the open source camp on the basic goals and values, but their views and ours lead in many cases to the same practical behavior--such as developing free software."
"As a result, people from the free software movement and the open source camp often work together on practical projects such as software development. It is remarkable that such different philosophical views can so often motivate different people to participate in the same projects. Nonetheless, these views are very different, and there are situations where they lead to very different actions."
"The main initial motivation for the term “open source software” is that the ethical ideas of “free software” make some people uneasy. That's true: talking about freedom, about ethical issues, about responsibilities as well as convenience, is asking people to think about things they might prefer to ignore, such as whether their conduct is ethical. This can trigger discomfort, and some people may simply close their minds to it. It does not follow that we ought to stop talking about these things.
However, that is what the leaders of “open source” decided to do. They figured that by keeping quiet about ethics and freedom, and talking only about the immediate practical benefits of certain free software, they might be able to “sell” the software more effectively to certain users, especially business."
"Conclusion
As the advocates of open source draw new users into our community, we free software activists have to work even more to bring the issue of freedom to those new users' attention. We have to say, “It's free software and it gives you freedom!”--more and louder than ever. Every time you say “free software” rather than “open source,” you help our campaign."
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
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 01:55:51 +0530, Rony ronbillypop@yahoo.co.uk said:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 20:19:32 +0530, Rony You are making up your own terms. Open Source Software was a term defined by http://www.opensource.org/, and trhe definition there is the one commonly accepted in the community.
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php%3E Defines redistribution as point 1. And this is the official definition of the term.
Read point 4 from that link and emphasis is added... "4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
This is kinda funny, since I was involved when we created that clause :) But you know, you ar throwing in red herrings: OSS is OSS, as defined by that definition; and that required the resulting programs to be distributed, even if you distribute the sources as original + patch-set.
OSS requires that the software be distributed, even commercially, with modifications.
The stuff we were talking about is not OSS. Nothin you quote below changes that.
Having cleared that, let me comment on the rest of your posting (which, I think, quotes over much from commonly available documents, but hey).
The license *may* *restrict* source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.
So, none of this allows you to not permit distribution of modified binaries under a commercial license. That part is something you just made up, right?
This clause was essentially so we did not throw out TeX. The release original with patches clause was reluctantly considered good enough, since in practice Debian does distribute original + patches in the source packaging, but it came in with great debate.
Also reluctantly added was the rename on modification clauses; again, for TeX.
None of this means that software considered free under the DFSG is not free software (since the OSI definition is essentially the DFSG with the references to Debian removed).
Even the FSF acknowledges that open source and free software are the same software bits: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html%3E
What made you think so?
From the article: Nearly all open source software is free software; the two terms describe almost the same category of software.
Again a mix-up of OSS and FOSS.
So, F and OSS in FOSS are not the same thing. We know that. But the OSS IN FOSS is the same as the OSS alone. Open Source Software, as defined by the modified DFSG.
What basis do you have for this gross misrepresentation of what OSS is? Can you cite any authoritative source for this? (I felt like making up my own meaning does not count)
From the gnu link http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html that you posted.
That says nothing about OSS not being the same as in Free/OSS part. The OSS in F/OSS is the same as trhe stand alone OSS, and nothing in there talks about OSS as in FOSS versus plain old OSS.
They talk about differences between free software and OSS, so the fact that people bundle them together as FOSS is the part that muddles the differences. FOSS = FS + OSS; FS +1 OSS; but the OSS part still requires source code to be distributed in binary form after changes have been made.
"Free software. Open source. If it's the same software, does it matter which name you use?
Yup, same software, different names.
"The official definition of “open source software” (which is published by the Open Source Initiative and too long to cite here) was derived indirectly from our criteria for free software. It is not the same; it is a little looser in some respects, so open source supporters have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive of the users. Nonetheless, it is fairly close to our definition in practice."
Well, we did not quire derive it from the FSF definition -- consider the GFDL is not considered to be free according to the DFSG, which is almost word for word what the OSI people created when they copied the DFSG.
Hope that clarifies things a bit.
manoj
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 01:55:51 +0530, Rony ronbillypop@yahoo.co.uk said:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 20:19:32 +0530, Rony You are making up your own terms. Open Source Software was a term defined by http://www.opensource.org/, and trhe definition there is the one commonly accepted in the community.
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php%3E Defines redistribution as point 1. And this is the official definition of the term.
Read point 4 from that link and emphasis is added... "4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
This is kinda funny, since I was involved when we created thatclause :) But you know, you ar throwing in red herrings: OSS is OSS, as defined by that definition; and that required the resulting programs to be distributed, even if you distribute the sources as original + patch-set.
OSS requires that the software be distributed, evencommercially, with modifications.
The stuff we were talking about is not OSS. Nothin you quotebelow changes that.
Having cleared that, let me comment on the rest of your posting(which, I think, quotes over much from commonly available documents, but hey).
The license *may* *restrict* source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.
So, none of this allows you to not permit distribution ofmodified binaries under a commercial license. That part is something you just made up, right?
This clause was essentially so we did not throw out TeX. Therelease original with patches clause was reluctantly considered good enough, since in practice Debian does distribute original + patches in the source packaging, but it came in with great debate.
Also reluctantly added was the rename on modificationclauses; again, for TeX.
None of this means that software considered free under theDFSG is not free software (since the OSI definition is essentially the DFSG with the references to Debian removed).
Even the FSF acknowledges that open source and free software are the same software bits: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html%3E
What made you think so?
From the article:Nearly all open source software is free software; the two terms describe almost the same category of software.
Again a mix-up of OSS and FOSS.
So, F and OSS in FOSS are not the same thing. We knowthat. But the OSS IN FOSS is the same as the OSS alone. Open Source Software, as defined by the modified DFSG.
What basis do you have for this gross misrepresentation of what OSS is? Can you cite any authoritative source for this? (I felt like making up my own meaning does not count)
From the gnu link http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html that you posted.
That says nothing about OSS not being the same as in Free/OSSpart. The OSS in F/OSS is the same as trhe stand alone OSS, and nothing in there talks about OSS as in FOSS versus plain old OSS.
They talk about differences between free software and OSS, sothe fact that people bundle them together as FOSS is the part that muddles the differences. FOSS = FS + OSS; FS +1 OSS; but the OSS part still requires source code to be distributed in binary form after changes have been made.
"Free software. Open source. If it's the same software, does it matter which name you use?
Yup, same software, different names."The official definition of “open source software†(which is published by the Open Source Initiative and too long to cite here) was derived indirectly from our criteria for free software. It is not the same; it is a little looser in some respects, so open source supporters have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive of the users. Nonetheless, it is fairly close to our definition in practice."
Well, we did not quire derive it from the FSF definition --consider the GFDL is not considered to be free according to the DFSG, which is almost word for word what the OSI people created when they copied the DFSG.
Could you please clarify what you are agreeing to and what are you opposing? In your earlier mail you try to make FOSS and OSS appear the same. The OSS and GNU links that you provided actually show that the two differ in allowing copyleft freedom. Now in the above mail you agree that they are different but FOSS - F = OSS. Well we all agree to that and thats what I said.
When the OP has already acknowledged that the OSS license under which Scilab is released is not the accepted OSS license and you too agree that FOSS != OSS then what are you arguing about?
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
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 20:23:30 +0530, Rony ronbillypop@yahoo.co.uk said:
Could you please clarify what you are agreeing to and what are you opposing? In your earlier mail you try to make FOSS and OSS appear the same. The OSS and GNU links that you provided actually show that the two differ in allowing copyleft freedom. Now in the above mail you agree that they are different but FOSS - F = OSS. Well we all agree to that and thats what I said.
Thats incorrect, actually. FOSS is term that contains OSS, so it is a superset of OSS. Think of it as a union of two overlapping sets.
When the OP has already acknowledged that the OSS license under which Scilab is released is not the accepted OSS license and you too agree that FOSS != OSS then what are you arguing about?
FOSS == Free or Open Source Software == Free Software U Open Source Software.
scilab is not OSS, scilab is not FS, and thus scilab is also not FOSS.
Frankly, I think most people will be hard put to come up with concrete examples of software that is OSS but not FS or that is FS but not OSS.
Any takers?
manoj
Sometime Today, MS cobbled together some glyphs to say:
concrete examples of software that is OSS but not FS or that is FS
pine.
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 22:33:13 +0530 (IST), Philip Tellis said:
Sometime Today, MS cobbled together some glyphs to say:
concrete examples of software that is OSS but not FS or that is FS
pine.
Are you sure pine is OSS? http://www.washington.edu/pine/overview/legal.html says: ,---- | Redistribution of this release is permitted as follows, or by mutual | agreement: | (a) In free-of-charge or at-cost distributions by non-profit concerns; | (b) In free-of-charge distributions by for-profit concerns; | (c) Inclusion in a CD-ROM collection of free-of-charge, shareware, or | non-proprietary software for which a fee may be charged for the | packaged distribution. `----
So, no can charge big bucks for pine. http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php: ,---- | 1. Free Redistribution | The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away | the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution | containing programs from several different sources. | 2. Source Code | The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in | source code as well as compiled form. | 3. Derived Works | The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must | allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of | the original software. `----
So, pine fails clause 1 of the OSS definition, and is thus not Open source software; since it prevents selling.
manoj
On Monday 19 Feb 2007 21:20:11 Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Frankly, I think most people will be hard put to come up withconcrete examples of software that is OSS but not FS or that is FS but not OSS.
Any takers?
Is qmail Open Source?
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:07:17 +0530, Mrugesh Karnik said:
On Monday 19 Feb 2007 21:20:11 Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Frankly, I think most people will be hard put to come up with concrete examples of software that is OSS but not FS or that is FS but not OSS.
Any takers?
Is qmail Open Source?
Heck no. No distribution of binary form kills that off the bat.
manoj
On 19-Feb-07, at 9:20 PM, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Frankly, I think most people will be hard put to come up withconcrete examples of software that is OSS but not FS or that is FS but not OSS.
Any takers?
isnt the BSD license OSS but not FS - as there is no bar against taking it proprietory?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 20 February 2007 06:27 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves cobbled together some glyphs to say:
On 19-Feb-07, at 9:20 PM, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Frankly, I think most people will be hard put to come up withconcrete examples of software that is OSS but not FS or that is FS but not OSS.
Any takers?isnt the BSD license OSS but not FS - as there is no bar against taking it proprietory?
BSD is Free Software. Having no bar is not a restriction. It's an extra Freedom. One can easily take BSD licensed code and make it proprietary / GPL. You need to understand that the Free Software definition has got nothing to do with the GNU GPL. The BSD license provides the four necessary freedoms and thus is Free Software, similar to Public Domain software.
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 20-Feb-07, at 11:34 AM, Baishampayan Ghose wrote:
freedoms and thus is Free Software, similar to Public Domain software.
Free software is similar to public domain software? Or is BSD similar to public domains software? Are you serious?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 20 February 2007 11:52 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves cobbled together some glyphs to say:
On 20-Feb-07, at 11:34 AM, Baishampayan Ghose wrote:
freedoms and thus is Free Software, similar to Public Domain software.
Free software is similar to public domain software? Or is BSD similar to public domains software? Are you serious?
The BSD License is almost a Public Domain license.
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 20-Feb-07, at 11:56 AM, Baishampayan Ghose wrote:
Free software is similar to public domain software? Or is BSD similar to public domains software? Are you serious?
The BSD License is almost a Public Domain license.
and what, precisely, is a 'Public Domain license'? Kindly attempt to distinguish between a license, which BSD is, and an absence of license, which is Public Domain. License is based on copyright, or ownership. Public domain is the relinquishment of copyright - relinquishment of ownership. The question of license only arises in the case where the author asserts copyright. It cannot arise in the case of Public Domain where there is *no* copyright. So the very phrase 'Public domain license' is an oxymoron. (and if you are continuing this debate, please, please, dont quote wikipedia)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 20 February 2007 12:37 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves cobbled together some glyphs to say:
On 20-Feb-07, at 11:56 AM, Baishampayan Ghose wrote:
Free software is similar to public domain software? Or is BSD similar to public domains software? Are you serious?
The BSD License is almost a Public Domain license.
and what, precisely, is a 'Public Domain license'? Kindly attempt to distinguish between a license, which BSD is, and an absence of license, which is Public Domain. License is based on copyright, or ownership. Public domain is the relinquishment of copyright - relinquishment of ownership. The question of license only arises in the case where the author asserts copyright. It cannot arise in the case of Public Domain where there is *no* copyright. So the very phrase 'Public domain license' is an oxymoron. (and if you are continuing this debate, please, please, dont quote wikipedia)
I was wrong in using the phrase ``public domain license'' as that indeed is an oxymoron. What I meant to say was that a 2 clause BSD style license is in effect almost equivalent to placing the software in the public domain.
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 20-Feb-07, at 12:35 PM, Baishampayan Ghose wrote:
I was wrong in using the phrase ``public domain license'' as that indeed is an oxymoron. What I meant to say was that a 2 clause BSD style license is in effect almost equivalent to placing the software in the public domain.
no way, it is totally different - or do you recognise 'Public Domain' as GPL compatible or 'Free Software'?
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:33:41 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org said:
On 20-Feb-07, at 12:35 PM, Baishampayan Ghose wrote:
I was wrong in using the phrase ``public domain license'' as that indeed is an oxymoron. What I meant to say was that a 2 clause BSD style license is in effect almost equivalent to placing the software in the public domain.
no way, it is totally different - or do you recognise 'Public Domain' as GPL compatible or 'Free Software'?
Software placed in the public domain is compatible with the GPL, in that it can be combined with software licensed under the GPL, and since it provides the users with the four essential freedoms, it is also free software. It also happens to be OSS, since it meets the requirements of the definition of OSS.
manoj
On 20-Feb-07, at 1:35 PM, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
no way, it is totally different - or do you recognise 'Public Domain' as GPL compatible or 'Free Software'?
Software placed in the public domain is compatible with theGPL, in that it can be combined with software licensed under the GPL, and since it provides the users with the four essential freedoms, it is also free software. It also happens to be OSS, since it meets the requirements of the definition of OSS.
ubercool
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 20 February 2007 01:33 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves cobbled together some glyphs to say:
On 20-Feb-07, at 12:35 PM, Baishampayan Ghose wrote:
I was wrong in using the phrase ``public domain license'' as that indeed is an oxymoron. What I meant to say was that a 2 clause BSD style license is in effect almost equivalent to placing the software in the public domain.
no way, it is totally different - or do you recognise 'Public Domain' as GPL compatible or 'Free Software'?
Public Domain is both Free Software and GPL compatible. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#PublicDomain
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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
no way, it is totally different - or do you recognise 'Public Domain' as GPL compatible or 'Free Software'?
Software placed in the public domain is very much like BSD-licensed software - you can do whatever you want with it. Since both types of software guarantee the 4 essential freedoms, they are free software. And since they are free software, they automatically become OSS.
- -- Anant
On 20-Feb-07, at 6:09 PM, Anant Narayanan wrote:
no way, it is totally different - or do you recognise 'Public Domain' as GPL compatible or 'Free Software'?
Software placed in the public domain is very much like BSD-licensed software
there is a fundamental difference - one is copyrighted and licensed, the other is relinquishment of copyright, unlicensed and no-one owns it. You guys are beginning to sound like prop software guys who keep trumpeting that all foss is nothing but public domain.
Hi,
Once upon a time this thread was about SciLab and alike applications. Apparently there is one Qt based application called ChainLink [1]. Hope this will be useful to some of us.
[1]http://chainlink.sourceforge.net/
Cheers!
Pradeepto
Hi, The thread started with an invitation for Scilab workshop claimed by the organisers as a free software.However , a sizable number of members of the group do not agree with it . The organizers of the workshop for promoting Scilab be should be informed about it.
Looking at the first mail it looks like the organizers are not a member of this forum.
Excerpts from the first mail:
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 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
Discussions are endless . They will go on and on !!!
Regards, Sourabh
scilab mail thread reached 100.
On 19-Feb-07, at 1:55 AM, Rony wrote:
As the advocates of open source draw new users into our community, we free software activists have to work even more to bring the issue of freedom to those new users' attention. We have to say, “It's free software and it gives you freedom!”--more and louder than ever. Every time you say “free software” rather than “open source,” you help our campaign."
in short, a call to the tail to be more vigorous in attempting to wag the dog
a. Dr. D.B. Phatak. Loves BSD; hates GPL. b. Someone from KreSit (forgot his name), who is close to 'a'. c. Chap from OSSRC, CDAC, Mumbai. d. Mathias Klang. Creative Commons Sweden, Lead
Person 'a' started off by expressing his hatred about GPL and expressed his love for BSD. He gave a nice presentation too. The presentation was in Windows.
*sigh*
Person 'b' spoke about the efforts of KreSit to promote Open Source, and
he used MacOS, even after I personnally offered him a free alternative.
Its VERY tough to make Mac OS X users accept anything else. Unless they have a VERY clear reason, namely ``Freedom" they won't do so.
Person 'c' spoke about how CDAC is championing Open Source and writing a
text to speech front-end for Pine. Why not Mutt? Pine is non-free, but I am not sure about the Open Sourceness of the thing. Hence I can not say anything. Even then. Why not Mutt? GNU did not write Mutt.
Very wierd, can this person even do this as if i'm not mistaken Pine does not give you Freedom 3, i.e you cannot publish the modified version.
Person 'd' again went for his MacOS. Reason being OpenOffice.org could
not render his presentation made in Powerpoint.
That's simple. Somebody should have told him in the mildest of terms DON'T USE POWERPOINT SHITHEAD!!! i'm sorry about the language but it's REALLY irritating that a speaker talking of open standards is using proprietary tools.
The problem with
Creative Commons is that its chief says Free Software and GPL has does not have the concept of copyright. That is nonsense. Isn't it?
agreed
Hence I can no more trust someone who champions Open Source and pretends
to work for software freedom.
let's not club everyone in that boat. There are those in the Open Source community who are fighting hard against software patents and let's not forget the SCO case either.
So what? FSF/GNU does recognise Linus Torvalds for the Linux kernel. The
only problem is that he is not much bothered about sofware freedom. Did you hear the BitKeeper story?
true.
Regards,
- vihan
-
Anant Narayanan -
Baishampayan Ghose -
Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray -
Harsh Busa -
Kenneth Gonsalves -
Manoj Srivastava -
Mrugesh Karnik -
nipra -
Philip Tellis -
Pradeepto Bhattacharya -
Rony -
saurabh daptardar -
Vihan Pandey