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