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