subject:"Re\: \[ILUG\-BOM\] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit"





Agreed. I guess a lot of people are currently using Aseems argument or
similar ones to criminalize FSF or OSS philosophy. Aseem has
presented it in a more civil manner. Most people dont do it.

Laws are in place to check exploitation and to guard the freedoms that
we have. Without these laws there will be nothing but chaos.

akin to traffic signals. Laws act as regulators. But it's when these laws  
start restricting beyond regulating when the whole problem arises. There  
is only a thin line of difference between the two.


Sachin G.

--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-15 Thread jtd

On Monday 15 January 2007 15:20, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
  Agreed. I guess a lot of people are currently using Aseems
  argument or similar ones to criminalize FSF or OSS philosophy.
  Aseem has presented it in a more civil manner. Most people dont
  do it.
 
  Laws are in place to check exploitation and to guard the freedoms
  that we have. Without these laws there will be nothing but chaos.

 akin to traffic signals. Laws act as regulators. But it's when
 these laws start restricting beyond regulating when the whole
 problem arises. There is only a thin line of difference between the
 two.

Like when the poltico can jump the signal and go home and u cant. Or 
when the slum lord can grab land but your balcony extension is 
demolished. What exactly are u talking about.
Laws are there to prevent exploitation. The ones to regulate are the 
ones that mostly are the problem and the cause of the messes u see 
around - regulate land use, regulate spectrum use, regulate 
connectivity, regulate free flow of labour, cash, food etc. And the 
mess is not merely because of existence of these regulations but more 
so because the implementation is well hidden from the end users. 
Something the gpl tries it's utmost to prevent in the case of 
software AND remove shortages caused by stupid regulation (EULA) - 
the bone of your primary grouse.
Bottom line - rethink your business model - based on unlimited 
availabilty and creation of knowledge rather than brain dead methods 
of coercion, packaging and distribution.

-- 
Rgds
JTD

-- 
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-15 Thread jtd

On Saturday 06 January 2007 00:53, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:

 Requirements:
 Tally software
 Autocad/Studioworks or any other as good opensource/linux variant.

At the free map workshop I happened to interact with a participant Who 
is the HOD of civil engineering in a Ludhiana college.
He has already evaluated brl cad and qcad.
Qcad does not have 3d and the free version does not have pline 
dimensioning. The paid version costs Rs.800/- which is peanuts.
Brlcad rocks except it does not have dimensioning. He says that if 
dimensioning is coded it will kick the pants off anything else in the 
closed world.

-- 
Rgds
JTD

-- 
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit




Bottom line - rethink your business model - based on unlimited
availabilty and creation of knowledge rather than brain dead methods
of coercion, packaging and distribution.

business models change as the markets force it to. Not really dependent on  
any singular individual i.e. assuming rationality. so if the market  
demands that the business model change, it will change.


Sachin G.

--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit





At the free map workshop I happened to interact with a participant Who
is the HOD of civil engineering in a Ludhiana college.
He has already evaluated brl cad and qcad.
Qcad does not have 3d and the free version does not have pline
dimensioning. The paid version costs Rs.800/- which is peanuts.
Brlcad rocks except it does not have dimensioning. He says that if
dimensioning is coded it will kick the pants off anything else in the
closed world.



i don't think payment should be an issue. have downloaded and installed  
Brlcad will try it out. And at Rs 800 if it can do what it says it can do  
well is a steal. provided ofcourse the user is ready to use it :)


Sachin G.

--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-15 Thread Kenneth Gonsalves



On 14-Jan-07, at 8:01 PM, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:

nobody said am not ready to give my software out. it was about free  
distribution. if i write something i allow you to change, modify  
and do as you wish just dont release a variant using my code and  
after appending you code. i would ofcourse extend the same respect  
to the code from the original software.


cool - draft your own license and release it


--
regards

Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate, NRC-FOSS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/




--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-15 Thread Vihan Pandey


 nobody said am not ready to give my software out. it was about free
 distribution. if i write something i allow you to change, modify
 and do as you wish just dont release a variant using my code and
 after appending you code. i would ofcourse extend the same respect
 to the code from the original software.

cool - draft your own license and release it



True, and don't claim freedom where there is no freedom to distribute it is
contradictory.

Regards,

- vihan
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-15 Thread jtd

On Monday 15 January 2007 16:08, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
  Bottom line - rethink your business model - based on unlimited
  availabilty and creation of knowledge rather than brain dead
  methods of coercion, packaging and distribution.

 business models change as the markets force it to. Not really
 dependent on any singular individual i.e. assuming rationality. so
 if the market demands that the business model change, it will
 change.

If you want to use FOSS for earning your bread rethink your business 
model.
I dont think anybody on this list really cares about your or some 
arbitary software business's capability to react or not otherwise.

-- 
Rgds
JTD

-- 
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-15 Thread Aseem Rane


On 1/15/07, Dinesh Joshi  wrote:


On Monday 15 January 2007 11:20, jtd wrote:
 On Sunday 14 January 2007 19:40, Aseem Rane wrote:
  The society without any constitution and laws is more free than a
  society having various laws and rules preventing certain behavior.

 Popular misconception. Society which permits exploitative and or
 destructive behaviour actually hinders a society from being one. And
 restrictions are not about rstricting freedom but about restricting
 exploitation.

Agreed. I guess a lot of people are currently using Aseems argument or
similar ones to criminalize FSF or OSS philosophy. Aseem has
presented it in a more civil manner. Most people dont do it.



Ooooppps. There is a BIG misinterpretation here.
While writing that I thought I was supporting Free software and GPL.
Let me clarify.

BSD license puts lesser restrictions on what you can do with the software.
I wanted to say that even though GPL puts more restrictions, it is better.
See it in the context of KG's mail which says OSS is more free than
FSS and nothing wrong with that.


Laws are in place to check exploitation and to guard the freedoms that

we have. Without these laws there will be nothing but chaos.



Exactly. So my point is even though GPL puts more restrictions, these
restrictions are for good and ensures better freedom for end users.
So we are on the same side here, aren't we?
As I said earlier,

I prefer the society which put some restrictions of laws and
constitution to ensure freedom for everyone.


I don't know why you thought that I am criminalizing FSF.
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-15 Thread Dinesh Joshi

On Monday 15 January 2007 20:25, Aseem Rane wrote:
 Ooooppps. There is a BIG misinterpretation here.

Be more verbose the next time and make your point clear.

 While writing that I thought I was supporting Free software and GPL.
 Let me clarify.

 BSD license puts lesser restrictions on what you can do with the
 software. I wanted to say that even though GPL puts more
 restrictions, it is better. See it in the context of KG's mail which
 says OSS is more free than FSS and nothing wrong with that.

 Exactly. So my point is even though GPL puts more restrictions, these
 restrictions are for good and ensures better freedom for end users.
 So we are on the same side here, aren't we?
 As I said earlier,

The true freedom lies in getting to choose the GPL or BSD or whatever 
license you want. Nobodys shoving GPL down anybodys throat =P
 
 I don't know why you thought that I am criminalizing FSF.

Dont blame me. Read your own post.

-- 
Regards,
Dinesh A. Joshi

-- 
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-15 Thread Vihan Pandey


Forwarding my bigger mail after ruthlessly trimming it



welcome to the club.

The FOSS philosophy DOES NOT say that you should distribute the software

free of charge.
Remember Free as in Beer Vs Free as in Freedom??



Interesting point,

in which case i am inclined to ask - Sachin are you opposed to distribution
as a whole or gratis distribution only?

Regards,

- vihan
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit





in which case i am inclined to ask - Sachin are you opposed to  
distribution

as a whole or gratis distribution only?


did not intend to reply anymore..since you asked ..distribution only.

Sachin G.

--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-15 Thread Dinesh Joshi

On Monday 15 January 2007 22:03, Aseem Rane wrote:
 I did read my post many times after your reply.
 But unfortunately I am still unable to understand where I
 criminalized FSF.

I should've written a more detailed reply. I did not mean that YOU 
criminalized FOSS. I should've said that the people who criminalized 
FOSS thought on similar lines i.e.:

 The society without any constitution and laws is more free than a
 society having various laws and rules preventing certain behavior.

For example an old buddy of mine on a certain forum who owns a 
magazine and is also the Regional Director of M$ for North India has 
criminalized FOSS on the same lines that you stated. He also stated 
the same two lines that I quoted above. Infact there is an on going 
thread where he has ruthlessly butchered the FOSS philosophy and 
spreading FUD amongst the forum members. According to him GPL taints 
developers. It is viral ( not in the sense that we FOSS supporters 
take it ) and also creates more damage than anything else can. It 
falsely claims to protect freedoms where as infact it takes them 
away... Its misrepresents itself to fool people into thinking that 
they are getting freedom. According to him, its not even an open 
license. Infact M$ shared source license is much better that GPL as it 
atleast doesn't misrepresents itself by falsely claiming to give 
freedom...

-- 
Regards,
Dinesh A. Joshi

-- 
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-15 Thread Kenneth Gonsalves



On 15-Jan-07, at 8:25 PM, Aseem Rane wrote:

BSD license puts lesser restrictions on what you can do with the  
software.
I wanted to say that even though GPL puts more restrictions, it is  
better.


it is? Depends on the context and the reason why the software is  
being released. I would release some things under GPL, other things  
under a BSD style license and still other things under public domain



Exactly. So my point is even though GPL puts more restrictions, these
restrictions are for good and ensures better freedom for end users.


I have always been told vegetables are good for me - but I dont like  
them. On the other hand there are people who only eat vegetables and  
even claim to enjoy them.



So we are on the same side here, aren't we?


we *do* have a common enemy


--
regards

Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate, NRC-FOSS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/




--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-14 Thread Vihan Pandey


lets not take things out of context



i believe we context switched - READ to your statements and all the WRITE(S)
have been happening since then.

and be snide about it shall we?


When you make provocative statements based on a complete lack of
understanding of FOSS on a GNU/Linux users mailing list what did you expect?

I

wondered aloud,



Well, when people wonder things like this its pretty offensive and dangerous
for the community, and such ``wonderings have to be responded to in kind.

Your statements :

quote
There are just too many parasites out there in the
world. Does he not have a right?
/quote

is offensive to the concept of knowledge sharing which is what FOSS is all
about.

quote
I easily understand my right to read the code of the product am buying. I
do not understand why this right extends to distribution? It's akin to
piracy in a loose sense!
/quote

There are no pirates in the FOSS world. If you do not understand how the
FOSS business model works then please read :

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

quote
Am not a subscriber to FOSS philosophy in whole. I like some parts, but
not others. I dont like the idea of collectivism where everyone shares
whatever they have made with everyone else. Sure it's your right if you
want to, but don't disparage me if i dont want to. :
/quote

O.K, it seems what you are stating is similar if not same to what micro$oft
has been harping about - the shared source model - share some(sic) code and
distribution does not come into picture. Well, now we know where your
inclination and inspiration came from. We all know that shared source went
phut and i guess that tells you something about why that line of thinking
just doesn't work.


quote
If i make a software and sell it to you and also give you the source. Mere
pet pe laath mat
maro ... :)
quote

READ THE FOSS BUSINESS MODEL IN THE PARAGRAPH ABOVE.

quote
Actually i have been through the original sources. i suggest you read my
other mail which i think clarifies the point.
/quote

Been there done that. If you are thinking GNU/Linux technically and trying
to be micro$oft in policy - you are just asking to be singed, burnt, and
eventually charred on any mailing list.

some people have kindly given me some answers. Let that be

the end of it.



The end is what YOU believe in and how it impacts your life and that of the
community.

Regards(to you and the mailing list),

- vihan
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit


2007/1/14, Sachin G Nambiar [EMAIL PROTECTED]:




I create X. I want to use a retail business model(whether it works or does
not work is out of the question) but as a proprietor i have a right to
choose my business model! [point 1]




You are thinking in terms of the proprietory business model. I agree with
you that you have the righ to chose your business model. But why do you
think we should accept your model? Because many people already does that?
Sorry we in the Free Software world does not think so.
See what Eben Moglen thinks abot it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Moglen

Moglen believes the idea of proprietary software is as ludicrous as having
proprietary mathematics or proprietary geometry. This would convert the
subjects from something you can learn into something you must buy, he
has argued. He points out that software is among the things which can be
copied infinitely over and over again, without any further costs.

Software id knowledge and it should be avilable to every one. If you don't
agree to this, well we don't agree with you as well :-)


If a person buys mp3 of a shakira song (who i think has a great voice btw)

he has every right to listen to it, add his own effects for his own
pleasure (remix it) but he should not broadcast it. Because by doing so,
he is infringing on the record labels copyright. Thats what copyrights 
patents are for! To prevent misuse and to protect the
originator/creator.[point 2]



In the US constitution:
The Constitution gives permission for a copyright system with this paragraph
(Article I, Section 8):

   [Congress shall have the power] to promote the progress of science and
the useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the
exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.


See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html for more
info on the motivations for copyright.

The aim of the copyright law is not to protect originator but to promote
progress of science and useful arts. Get your basics right.

So don't think authors have any natural right to their work. It is granted
by the goverment so as to benefit the public.

Cheers
Praveen
--
Value your freedom, or you will lose it, teaches history.
`Don't bother us with politics', respond those who don't want to learn.
-- Richard Stallman
Me scribbles at http://www.pravi.co.nr
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007/1/14, Sachin G Nambiar [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

When i buy a software i have a right to use it in any way i wish.

That is Freedom 0. If you buy a non-free software you don't have these
rights.period.

But when

i distribute it as if it were my own(even with modifications), iam
basically building upon the millions(possibly) spent by the creator in
developing, market research for usability and marketing.

You are thinking from a proprietory business model. Free Software is created
because we want to live in Freedom. Open Source Software is to develop
powerful and reliable software. There isn't a creator but every one
collaborate here.

The creator has

every right to stop me from distributing the software because as a creator
he/she has every right to control who gets the software and who does not!

This is not a natural right but one he got from the Bern Convention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works

Software is intangible like mp3 and the effect of free distribution will

make my business model non-profitable!

Chose another business model that is profitable. Who said you should chose a
non-profitable business model?

The creator likes the society as a whole to be benefited thats why he made

the software, but not at his expense!

No, if he likes to see th whole socity benefited he would have released it
as Free Software.

Cheers
Praveen

--
Value your freedom, or you will lose it, teaches history.
`Don't bother us with politics', respond those who don't want to learn.
-- Richard Stallman
Me scribbles at http://www.pravi.co.nr
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit


2007/1/14, Sachin G Nambiar [EMAIL PROTECTED]:


If FOSS philosphy says explicitly that every software should be freely
distributable, then it is infringing upon the fundamental right of the
creator.



Nobody compels you to release it as Free Software, but don't insist you want
to call it Free Software and still being able to restrict the user of the
fundamantal Freedoms. Is anyone infringing upon Microsoft's moral rights
because they release non-free software. We said we will show you how to make
ethical software and demonstrated practically how to develop ethical
software and it now powers a billion dolla industry. Just see how much money
IBM, HP, and others make from Free Software

HP claims it has started to make higher margins from open source than
proprietary software in some instances, due to the support costs associated
with migration.
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,100121,39284344,00.htm


If the creator wishes it to be distributed then it's fine. But he

should have his say.



He has, that's how the  whole FOSS software works it is not Richard Stallman
or Linus Torvals that decides the license for a FOSS Software, it is
individual developers who decide and it is their code and they have chosen
to allow Free distribution.

That being said, there are seperate licenses.. (GPL)

is just one of them. I can choose to modify a particular software and sell
it under a different license.



No you cannot unless you right it yourself. or it is under BSD. If you are
not ready to give your software to other how hippocrite of you to expect to
be allowed to distribute a GPL software in any license you like!

Now iam all for freedom software,


As long as can leech code from others ...

but just because FOSS philosophy says

that freedom software should be distributable free of charge does not mean
that it's right.



You don't have to accept it but don't say it is not right because you don't
like it. Call your software something else. If you want to call your
software FOSS then you have to follow the FOSS philosophy or you are free to
call it something else.


It's a fundamental moral infringement upon the creators

right.



You don't understand a bit about anything.


You being able to use a distributable software is your privilege

not your right!



It is the right of the users to chose only softwares that allow them to
redustribute.

Cheers
Praveen
--
Value your freedom, or you will lose it, teaches history.
`Don't bother us with politics', respond those who don't want to learn.
-- Richard Stallman
Me scribbles at http://www.pravi.co.nr
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-14 Thread Kenneth Gonsalves



On 14-Jan-07, at 3:57 PM, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:


I create X. I want to use a retail business model(whether it works  
or does not work is out of the question) but as a proprietor i have  
a right to choose my business model! [point 1]


yes


If a person buys mp3 of a shakira song (who i think has a great  
voice btw) he has every right to listen to it, add his own effects  
for his own pleasure (remix it) but he should not broadcast it.  
Because by doing so, he is infringing on the record labels  
copyright. Thats what copyrights  patents are for! To prevent  
misuse and to protect the originator/creator.[point 2]


here starts the confusion. copyright != patent. Please find out the  
difference.




When i buy a software i have a right to use it in any way i wish.


no - when you 'buy' doze, you have practically no rights whatsover -  
check the EULA


But when i distribute it as if it were my own(even with  
modifications), iam basically building upon the millions(possibly)  
spent by the creator in developing, market research for usability  
and marketing. The creator has every right to stop me from  
distributing the software because as a creator he/she has every  
right to control who gets the software and who does not! Software  
is intangible like mp3 and the effect of free distribution will  
make my business model non-profitable! What about the creator's  
effort then? Sure you might build on it to make something better,  
but the original idea was his(the creator)! [point 3]


if you distribute it without the permission of the creator - you will  
wind up in jail. You can only distribute it if the creator gives you  
permission - which is called a license. Kindly check the difference  
between license and copyright




The creator likes the society as a whole to be benefited thats why  
he made the software,


he made the software either because he enjoys making software, or to  
scratch an itch or to make money. Nobody writes software for the  
benefit of society.


but not at his expense! He has created something and wants to be  
compensated for his effort. If he does not it's a different matter.  
But saying that he should release as distributable is infringing  
upon his moral right!(this is indirectly implied when you dub his  
software as not free (as in freedom))


he has the right to do whatever he wants with it - but if he keeps it  
non-free, it is non-free.




If FOSS philosphy says explicitly that every software should be  
freely distributable, then it is infringing upon the fundamental  
right of the creator.


how so? FOSS is not a law - it has no police to enforce it's  
dictates. It is an opinion. I firmly believe that the earth is flat.  
And that anyone who thinks it is round is an idiot. How does that  
infringe on your fundamental right to believe that the earth is  
round? Or do you think the flat earth society should be banned?


If the creator wishes it to be distributed then it's fine. But he  
should have his say. That being said, there are seperate licenses..  
(GPL) is just one of them. I can choose to modify a particular  
software and sell it under a different license.


jail



Now iam all for freedom software,


you arent

but just because FOSS philosophy says that freedom software should  
be distributable free of charge does not mean that it's right.


you have the right to believe that the FOSS philosophy is wrong. And  
also learn to distinguish between free as in freedom and free as in  
free of charge.


It's a fundamental moral infringement upon the creators right. You  
being able to use a distributable software is your privilege not  
your right!


ahh - here you are right


--
regards

Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate, NRC-FOSS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/




--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-14 Thread Kenneth Gonsalves



On 14-Jan-07, at 6:40 PM, പ്രവീണ്‍‌|Praveen wrote:

This much is enough to qualify it as Free Software, See BSD, MIT, X  
all are

Free  Software.


w00t


--
regards

Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate, NRC-FOSS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/




--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit


The aim of the copyright law is not to protect originator but to promote
progress of science and useful arts. Get your basics right.

So don't think authors have any natural right to their work. It is  
granted

by the goverment so as to benefit the public.



Now is that fair? That the government should decide? But that goes into a  
totally different discussion. Maybe this is the problem.


Sachin G

--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit


2007/1/14, Kenneth Gonsalves [EMAIL PROTECTED]:



On 14-Jan-07, at 1:45 AM, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:

 Without any Regards to you, and with Regards to the List,

 - vihan
 lets not take things out fo context and be snide about it shall we?
 I wondered aloud, some people have kindly given me some answers.
 Let that be the end of it.

your problem is that you belong to the OSS school and not the FOSS
school -


The first lesson in the OSS school is
1. Free Redistribution http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php

And I don't know how you thought he is in the OSS school

Cheers
Praveen
--
Value your freedom, or you will lose it, teaches history.
`Don't bother us with politics', respond those who don't want to learn.
-- Richard Stallman
Me scribbles at http://www.pravi.co.nr
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit





here starts the confusion. copyright != patent. Please find out the  
difference.
no confusion .. everything in it's place as long as the message has gone  
across even if not in agreement.


no - when you 'buy' doze, you have practically no rights whatsover -  
check the EULA

 who said anything about doze? i was talking about my rights.

if you distribute it without the permission of the creator - you will  
wind up in jail. You can only distribute it if the creator gives you  
permission - which is called a license. Kindly check the difference  
between license and copyright

my sentiments exactly...



The creator likes the society as a whole to be benefited thats why he  
made the software,


he made the software either because he enjoys making software, or to  
scratch an itch or to make money. Nobody writes software for the benefit  
of society.

that point was in reaction to another comment. I agree


he has the right to do whatever he wants with it - but if he keeps it  
non-free, it is non-free.

guess the argument was what constitutes freedom.





I can choose to modify a particular software

and sell it under a different license.


jail

thanks.


Now iam all for freedom software,


you arent

sure

but just because FOSS philosophy says that freedom software should be  
distributable free of charge does not mean that it's right.


you have the right to believe that the FOSS philosophy is wrong. And  
also learn to distinguish between free as in freedom and free as in free  
of charge.

i did that long time ago, thanks anyway.

It's a fundamental moral infringement upon the creators right. You  
being able to use a distributable software is your privilege not your  
right!


ahh - here you are right


finally some agreement. Making some headway aren't we ;)

Sachin G.

--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-14 Thread Aseem Rane


On 1/14/07, Kenneth Gonsalves  wrote:



your problem is that you belong to the OSS school and not the FOSS
school - nothing wrong in that. It is actually more free than the
FOSS school which puts some restrictions on the redistribution of
software.



The society without any constitution and laws is more free than a society
having various laws and rules preventing certain behavior. I prefer the
society which put some restrictions of laws and constitution to ensure
freedom for everyone. We are not part of Utopia.
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit


2007/1/14, Sachin G Nambiar [EMAIL PROTECTED]:



 no - when you 'buy' doze, you have practically no rights whatsover -
 check the EULA
  who said anything about doze? i was talking about my rights.



Rights to what software ypu were talking about?

I can choose to modify a particular software

 and sell it under a different license.

 jail
thanks.



:-) We saved you from going to jail.

Cheers
Praveen
--
Value your freedom, or you will lose it, teaches history.
`Don't bother us with politics', respond those who don't want to learn.
-- Richard Stallman
Me scribbles at http://www.pravi.co.nr
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit





Nobody compels you to release it as Free Software, but don't insist you  
want

to call it Free Software and still being able to restrict the user of the
fundamantal Freedoms. Is anyone infringing upon Microsoft's moral rights
because they release non-free software. We said we will show you how to  
make

ethical software and demonstrated practically how to develop ethical
software and it now powers a billion dolla industry. Just see how much  
money

IBM, HP, and others make from Free Software

i agree they profit from it.


HP claims it has started to make higher margins from open source than
proprietary software in some instances, due to the support costs  
associated

with migration.
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,100121,39284344,00.htm

sure..


If the creator wishes it to be distributed then it's fine. But he

should have his say.



He has, that's how the  whole FOSS software works it is not Richard  
Stallman

or Linus Torvals that decides the license for a FOSS Software, it is
individual developers who decide and it is their code and they have  
chosen

to allow Free distribution.

That being said, there are seperate licenses.. (GPL)
is just one of them. I can choose to modify a particular software and  
sell

it under a different license.



No you cannot unless you right it yourself.
isn't that the point? to write myself when i say modify some parts i can  
release those parts under as different license.


or it is under BSD. If you

are
not ready to give your software to other how hippocrite of you to expect  
to

be allowed to distribute a GPL software in any license you like!
nobody said am not ready to give my software out. it was about free  
distribution. if i write something i allow you to change, modify and do as  
you wish just dont release a variant using my code and after appending you  
code. i would ofcourse extend the same respect to the code from the  
original software.



As long as can leech code from others ...

untrue..

You don't have to accept it but don't say it is not right because you  
don't

like it.
Why not? I have laid out my reasons. Don't say my reasons are incorrect  
without dis-proving it.



Call your software something else. If you want to call your
software FOSS then you have to follow the FOSS philosophy or you are  
free to

call it something else.

sure .. but you fail to notice the failures in some points in FOSS.


It's a fundamental moral infringement upon the creators

right.


You don't understand a bit about anything.


is it not really? if i make something does the society/government have a  
right to tell me what/how to do stuff? lets not resort to personal remarks  
shall we :). iam finally receiving some good replies .. lets not spoil  
that.


You being able to use a distributable software is your privilege

not your right!



It is the right of the users to chose only softwares that allow them to
redustribute.

here we are in agreement. option/right to choose!!

regards,
Sachin G.

--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit


Rights to what software ypu were talking about?
lets liken the software to a tangible product. If i buy it don't i have a  
right to do whatever i choose to with it. i think i have that right with  
windows too but MS denies me the right! :/



I can choose to modify a particular software

 and sell it under a different license.

 jail
thanks.



:-) We saved you from going to jail.


yes you did!

Sachin G.

--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-14 Thread Vihan Pandey



 Seige Heil mien furherer.

your spelling sux - es ist 'sieg heil mein Fuehrer'



Error acknowledged. Apologies (for the spelling)

Regards,

- vihan
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-14 Thread jtd

On Friday 12 January 2007 22:08, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:

 My intention was not to insult, just a disagreement thats all. We
 only differ on our thoughts as to what extent of freedom we are
 talking about.

You are not talking about freedom at all. You are talking about 
exploitation.
And your knowledge about software business sucks big time.
You need to understand the diff btwn methodology of knowledge creation 
and the expertise for it's encapsulation. What part of software 
represents knowledge and what part represents a perishable commodity 
as pointed out by others. In the foss world it's knowledge that is 
valued and the more of others knowledge you add the more you gain. Of 
course nobody is daft to give you knowledge without you giving back 
your knowledge (which is infinitesimial relative to the whole body 
and quite useles on it's own). In the prop world you use your 
expertise to trap knowledge and extract  a fee. In the foss world you 
use expertise to always create and enhance knowledge, and charge for 
that and or your expertise in the form of brand building, services, 
customisation, virtual products etc. Because trapping knowledge 
imporvershies everybody your contention that you cant earn by not 
trapping knowledge is what? An indication that your knowledge pool is 
much less than infinitesimial. So enhance the knowledge pool by using 
it and adding back rather than keeping to yourself whatever little 
u know and becoming irrelevant. In my experience there have been 
innumerable software companies with superb products. Most are dead. 
Their creators working on things entirely different than the 
masterpieces they created. Did they benefit? hardly. would they have 
benefited by sharing their knowledge and expertise? We dont know. But 
from hind sight we know for sure that encapsulating knowledge in 
closed software fails
Ofcourse the closed software world pretends that their knowledge is so 
unique that they can hide it in closed software and nobody will ever 
discover the same knowledge independently. Do you really believe 
that?. Or that it will continue to have utility. Or that it will 
continue to enhance itself without external inputs.

-- 
Rgds
JTD

-- 
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-12 Thread Philip Tellis


Sometime Today, SGN cobbled together some glyphs to say:

AS i mentioned before, IF ..  .. i was just wondering for a sec if 
FOSS said anything about not being able to distribute. :)


These are easily verifiable facts.  You don't need to speculate out 
loud.  It would have been less effort for you to read the short form of 
the GPL first.


--
You are lost in the Swamps of Despair.

--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-12 Thread Philip Tellis


Sometime Today, SGN cobbled together some glyphs to say:

If Kcalculate provides the code along with the software it's FOSS 
alright. Freedom to change code, need not be to distribute.


Where did you learn that?

--
I know not how I came into this, shall I call it a dying life or a
living death?
-- St. Augustine

--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:59:09 +0530, Philip Tellis [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
wrote:



Sometime Today, SGN cobbled together some glyphs to say:

If Kcalculate provides the code along with the software it's FOSS  
alright. Freedom to change code, need not be to distribute.


Where did you learn that?



I easily understand my right to read the code of the product am buying. I  
do not understand why this right extends to distribution? It's akin to  
piracy in a loose sense!


Sachin G.

--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 18:01:52 +0530, Philip Tellis [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
wrote:



Sometime Today, SGN cobbled together some glyphs to say:

AS i mentioned before, IF ..  .. i was just wondering for a sec if  
FOSS said anything about not being able to distribute. :)


These are easily verifiable facts.  You don't need to speculate out  
loud.  It would have been less effort for you to read the short form of  
the GPL first.


Am not a subscriber to FOSS philosophy in whole. I like some parts, but  
not others. I dont like the idea of collectivism where everyone shares  
whatever they have made with everyone else. Sure it's your right if you  
want to, but don't disparage me if i dont want to. :).


Sachin G.

--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-12 Thread Pradeepto Bhattacharya


On 1/12/07, Sachin G Nambiar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Am not a subscriber to FOSS philosophy in whole. I like some parts, but
not others. I dont like the idea of collectivism where everyone shares
whatever they have made with everyone else. Sure it's your right if you
want to, but don't disparage me if i dont want to. :).


*sigh*


Pradeepto
--
The KDE Project : http://www.kde.org
KDE India : http://in.kde.org
Mailing List : http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-india

--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-12 Thread Mrugesh Karnik

On Friday 12 January 2007 20:42, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
 On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 18:01:52 +0530, Philip Tellis [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 wrote:
  Sometime Today, SGN cobbled together some glyphs to say:
  AS i mentioned before, IF ..  .. i was just wondering for a sec if
  FOSS said anything about not being able to distribute. :)
 
  These are easily verifiable facts.  You don't need to speculate out
  loud.  It would have been less effort for you to read the short form of
  the GPL first.

 Am not a subscriber to FOSS philosophy in whole. I like some parts, but
 not others. I dont like the idea of collectivism where everyone shares
 whatever they have made with everyone else. Sure it's your right if you
 want to, but don't disparage me if i dont want to. :).

*Whistles*

Awesome stuff sir! I bow to thee! The audacity to utter this wisdom on a GLUG 
list!

So this is like I'll leach from you and that's it! I get my profit, everyone 
else can go to hell!

What exactly are you doing on a 'G'LUG list?

Mind the G.

Actually, even that G doesn't matter. Because this email will get flamed on 
any LUG that's run by Linuxers (in this case GNU/Linuxers) for Linuxers.

Elsie, prepare to meet thy god.

-- 

Mrugesh Karnik
GPG Key 0xBA6F1DA8
Public key on http://wwwkeys.pgp.net



pgpNNEpDSuKum.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-12 Thread Parthan


On 1/12/07, Sachin G Nambiar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Am not a subscriber to FOSS philosophy in whole. I like some parts, but
not others. I dont like the idea of collectivism where everyone shares
whatever they have made with everyone else. Sure it's your right if you
want to, but don't disparage me if i dont want to. :).


LOL! So nice of you and hats off to your attitude! Nobody says you 
shouldn't keep things to yourself and not share, but for such a great 
attitude FOSS is not your base and we are not your brethren.


Here the rule is simple, you get the freedom if you are ready to give 
the same to others, same as in 100%. If not... just stay away!


If you are not a subscriber to FOSS philosophy then why talk about it 
and the freedom what we all think as our life-breath. You are talking to 
a community which thrives for Freedom. Please don't insult our passion 
with such comments.


--
With Regards

Parthan (TechnoFreak)

.   A Proud GNU/Linux User and Ubuntero
.0.
..0 [Web] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Parthan
000 [Blog]http://technofreakatchennai.wordpress.com

--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit



So the brickbats roll in my turn to *sigh*. I have clarified my stand in  
another mail under the same head! I disagree on some points but i also  
agree on others ..


Sachin G.

--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit



LOL! So nice of you and hats off to your attitude! Nobody says you  
shouldn't keep things to yourself and not share, but for such a great  
attitude FOSS is not your base and we are not your brethren.


Here the rule is simple, you get the freedom if you are ready to give  
the same to others, same as in 100%. If not... just stay away!


If you are not a subscriber to FOSS philosophy then why talk about it  
and the freedom what we all think as our life-breath. You are talking to  
a community which thrives for Freedom. Please don't insult our passion  
with such comments.





My apologies for ruffling feathers which i evidently have! We disagree on  
what freedom is here, my point i reiterate, i like the idea of opening up  
source to the end user because it's the end users right if he has paid for  
it. But it's also the givers right to restrict me from distributing it. If  
he says i can i will, but i wont hold a grudge against someone whom i have  
paid for his software if he does not want me to distribute. Simple!


Sachin G.

--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit



If you are not a subscriber to FOSS philosophy then why talk about it  
and the freedom what we all think as our life-breath. You are talking to  
a community which thrives for Freedom. Please don't insult our passion  
with such comments.




My intention was not to insult, just a disagreement thats all. We only  
differ on our thoughts as to what extent of freedom we are talking about.


Sachin G.


--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-12 Thread Parthan


Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
My apologies for ruffling feathers which i evidently have! We disagree 
on what freedom is here, my point i reiterate, i like the idea of 
opening up source to the end user because it's the end users right if he 
has paid for it. But it's also the givers right to restrict me from 
distributing it. If he says i can i will, but i wont hold a grudge 
against someone whom i have paid for his software if he does not want me 
to distribute. Simple!




You have to understand one thing. If you want to go the FOSS way, you 
can't be considering software as a *whole* product. Your point is valid 
considering the situation where you sell copies of your software and get 
money for each copy of them. But, whats in practice in FOSS arena is you 
give the software as 'free' but you charge for support and service.


Its based on what kind of software you make that this model may suit you 
or not. if it suits you, you can follow this business model. If you want 
to sell the software, just keep selling it and make money, then you have 
to rather embrace proprietary model than FOSS model for your business. 
It very much depends upon what kind of software you make, where it is 
deployed, what are the alternatives and many more factors which 
determine how you can make *some* money with the above said business model.


Its simple, if you can embrace our business model you stay in our pack. 
Else, you can use FOSS tools and make software which doesn't give the 
users the 'freedom to share and distribute', but you can not still call 
it FOSS software, because it has denied the important point of the 4 
freedoms a Free software offers its user.



--
With Regards

Parthan (TechnoFreak)

.   A Proud GNU/Linux User and Ubuntero
.0.
..0 [Web] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Parthan
000 [Blog]http://technofreakatchennai.wordpress.com

--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-12 Thread Rony


Sachin G Nambiar wrote:




My apologies for ruffling feathers which i evidently have! We disagree 
on what freedom is here, my point i reiterate, i like the idea of 
opening up source to the end user because it's the end users right if he 
has paid for it. But it's also the givers right to restrict me from 
distributing it. If he says i can i will, but i wont hold a grudge 
against someone whom i have paid for his software if he does not want me 
to distribute. Simple!



You are confusing between open software that you publicly 
distribute/sell to many and customized software made for an individual 
company. FOS Software created and customized  for a company is anyway 
private and will not be distributed to others. FOS Software 
sold/distributed openly is open for distribution ( of the code ) by all 
under the GPL. When you create software you are free to choose the 
license under which you want to distribute it according to your 
ideological beliefs. The FOSS ideology believes that since you use FOSS 
resources for creating your piece, you are duty bound to give back the 
changes you made *iff_you * distribute it to others. Please note that 
the FOSS ideology does not work out economically with retail software. 
FOSS earns big/mega bucks through support and customization.


Others may correct me if I am wrong, but if a developer uses FOSS and 
modifies it for a customer/company, he is *not* bound to give out the 
code, even to that customer, unless is demanded under the agreement made 
between the 2 parties. But if he sells/distributes the modified code 
openly to anyone, he is bound to reveal the modifications made.


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



--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit


 Please note that
the FOSS ideology does not work out economically with retail software.  
FOSS earns big/mega bucks through support and customization.
Yes i know and this was the only bone of contention. If i make a software  
and sell it to you and also give you the source. Mere pet pe laath mat  
maro ... :). Some people on some forum had contended that your software  
has to be freely distributable, or maybe i read them wrong.


I understand that if the license allows it it's fine,but my contention is  
it's still free software even if it's not freely distributable, because i  
allow you (as a maker) to use it in anyway you wish to change it in anyway  
you wish and but don't give it away for free (as in beer) just because i  
allow you to do anything with it for your own use.


--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-12 Thread Mrugesh Karnik

On Friday 12 January 2007 23:29, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:

 I understand that if the license allows it it's fine,but my contention is
 it's still free software even if it's not freely distributable, because i
 allow you (as a maker) to use it in anyway you wish to change it in anyway
 you wish and but don't give it away for free (as in beer) just because i
 allow you to do anything with it for your own use.

Quoting from Citizen Kane:

You talk about the people as though you own them, as though they belong to 
you! Goodness! As long as I can remember, you've talked about giving the 
people their rights.. As if you can make them a present of liberty, as a 
reward for services rendered. Remember the working man? (...) You used to 
write an awful lot about the working man... It's turning into something 
called 'organised labour'. You're not gonna like that one little bit when you 
find out that your working man expects something as HIS right, not as your 
gift! When your precious underprivileged really get together... Oh boy! 
That's gonna add up to something bigger than your privileges and I don't know 
what you'll do!

Does that tell you something about FOSS? Its power to the USER.

-- 

Mrugesh Karnik
GPG Key 0xBA6F1DA8
Public key on http://wwwkeys.pgp.net



pgpoA8A4Un5YD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit




Does that tell you something about FOSS? Its power to the USER.

As long as it does not take power away from the maker. Sure ... more power  
to the user.


Sachin G.

--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit



On 12-Jan-07, at 10:05 PM, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:

So the brickbats roll in my turn to *sigh*. I have clarified my  
stand in another mail under the same head! I disagree on some  
points but i also agree on others ..


you agree on all the points where you can profit from OSS, and  
disagree on all the points where you can profit by refuting FOSS -  
win-win situation. Win? word sounds familiar ...



--
regards

Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate, NRC-FOSS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/




--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit



On 12-Jan-07, at 8:37 PM, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:


Where did you learn that?



I easily understand my right to read the code of the product am  
buying. I do not understand why this right extends to distribution?  
It's akin to piracy in a loose sense!


what is piracy? stealing of software? how can you steal software? can  
you steal air that you breathe? is software property? If i have a  
dosai and give you my dosai, now you have a dosai and i dont. If i  
have source code and give it to you, we both have source code.  
Frankly I fail to see what you are doing in this list without the  
faintest understanding - or attempt to understand the concept of FOSS  
or OSS. We have given you sufficient references which you cant be  
bothered reading. I suggest you at least look up wikipedia for the  
terms FOSS and OSS if you cant be bothered reading the original sources.



--
regards

Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate, NRC-FOSS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/




--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit



On 12-Jan-07, at 8:42 PM, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:

Am not a subscriber to FOSS philosophy in whole. I like some parts,  
but not others.


you have not even understood the FOSS philosophy


--
regards

Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate, NRC-FOSS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/




--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

what is piracy? stealing of software? how can you steal software? can  
you steal air that you breathe? is software property? If i have a dosai  
and give you my dosai, now you have a dosai and i dont. If i have source  
code and give it to you, we both have source code. Frankly I fail to see  
what you are doing in this list without the faintest understanding - or  
attempt to understand the concept of FOSS or OSS. We have given you  
sufficient references which you cant be bothered reading. I suggest you  
at least look up wikipedia for the terms FOSS and OSS if you cant be  
bothered reading the original sources.




Actually i have been through the original sources. i suggest you read my  
other mail which i think clarifies the point.


Sachin G.

--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 08:06:16 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
wrote:




On 12-Jan-07, at 10:05 PM, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:

So the brickbats roll in my turn to *sigh*. I have clarified my stand  
in another mail under the same head! I disagree on some points but i  
also agree on others ..


you agree on all the points where you can profit from OSS, and disagree  
on all the points where you can profit by refuting FOSS - win-win  
situation. Win? word sounds familiar ...


hmm ...

--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit



On 12-Jan-07, at 11:02 PM, Rony wrote:

You are confusing between open software that you publicly  
distribute/sell to many and customized software made for an  
individual company. FOS Software created and customized  for a  
company is anyway private and will not be distributed to others.


wrong - there is no distinction - if it is FOSS, even distributing to  
one person constitutes a release and that person, and the rest of the  
world gets the rights under it


FOS Software sold/distributed openly is open for distribution ( of  
the code ) by all under the GPL.


are you doing this deliberately? Even Stallman himself does not say  
that only software under GPL is FOSS. There are a large number of  
licenses to choose from - and all FOSS licenses. GPL is only one of  
the many


When you create software you are free to choose the license under  
which you want to distribute it according to your ideological beliefs.


nothing to do with ideology - it all depends on your business model.  
Idealogues preach, they dont create software


The FOSS ideology believes that since you use FOSS resources for  
creating your piece, you are duty bound to give back the changes  
you made *iff_you * distribute it to others. Please note that the  
FOSS ideology does not work out economically with retail software.


idealogy and business dont mix. But the FOSS business model works out  
economically even with retail and customised software - especially  
customised software



FOSS earns big/mega bucks through support and customization.


also true


Others may correct me if I am wrong, but if a developer uses FOSS  
and modifies it for a customer/company, he is *not* bound to give  
out the code, even to that customer, unless is demanded under the  
agreement made between the 2 parties.


you are wrong - he is bound to give the code - there is no  
distinction between public sale and private sale


But if he sells/distributes the modified code openly to anyone, he  
is bound to reveal the modifications made.


true


--
regards

Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate, NRC-FOSS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/




--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-12 Thread Parthan


Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
I understand that if the license allows it it's fine,but my contention 
is it's still free software even if it's not freely distributable, 


Once you prevent the 'freedom to freely distribute', the existence of 
the software as free software ends.


because i allow you (as a maker) to use it in anyway you wish to change 
it in anyway you wish and but don't give it away for free (as in beer) 
just because i allow you to do anything with it for your own use.


'Free' in free software doesn't mind about whether a person gives it 
free of charge or gets some cents, it speaks about the freedom 
associated with a software. Especially the following freedoms,


1. Freedom to use the software wherever you want, how many hardwares you 
want and how ever you want.

2. Freedom to study and modify the source code of the software.
3. Freedom to copy and distribute the software.
4. Freedom to distribute the modified software.

When you kill any of these freedoms, you can not call it as Free(dom) 
Software then.


In FOSS world, you can't let alone survive by selling one software as in 
proprietary world, rather you have to provide support and service to 
make 'some' money. If your software is so good and critical to a user, 
he most probably wont give it to others and loose some lead in the 
competition. Even if he does give to a few, its your software being used 
by more people and thats an advantage to you.


--
With Regards

Parthan (TechnoFreak)

.   A Proud GNU/Linux User and Ubuntero
.0.
..0 [Web] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Parthan
000 [Blog]http://technofreakatchennai.wordpress.com

--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-12 Thread Rony


Sachin G Nambiar wrote:

 Please note that
the FOSS ideology does not work out economically with retail software. 
FOSS earns big/mega bucks through support and customization.
Yes i know and this was the only bone of contention. If i make a 
software and sell it to you and also give you the source. Mere pet pe 
laath mat maro ... :). Some people on some forum had contended that your 
software has to be freely distributable, or maybe i read them wrong.


If you release your software under GPL, its free to use, modify, 
redistribute the modification...subject to you giving out the changes 
you made. Otherwise you should not release your software under GPL. Use 
a license that suits your requirement.




I understand that if the license allows it it's fine,but my contention 
is it's still free software even if it's not freely distributable, 
because i allow you (as a maker) to use it in anyway you wish to change 
it in anyway you wish and but don't give it away for free (as in beer) 
just because i allow you to do anything with it for your own use.




It will be 'open source' but not 'free'.

Regards,

Rony.


Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 



--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-11 Thread Vihan Pandey


 Autocad/Studioworks or any other as good opensource/linux variant.

http://brlcad.org/

The BRL-CAD package is a powerful Constructive Solid Geometry (CSG)
solid modeling system with over 20 years development and production
use by the U.S. military. BRL-CAD includes an interactive geometry
editor, parallel ray-tracing support for rendering and geometric
analysis, path-tracing for realistic image synthesis, network
distributed framebuffer support, image-processing and
signal-processing tools. The entire package is distributed in source
code form.



*bow*

License: BSD License, GNU General Public License (GPL), GNU Library or

Lesser General Public License (LGPL)



Mind blowing :-)

A query though, i'm a complete newbie at CAD and its technicalities,
therefore i ask : If this
thing has been there for over 20 years and has been GPL(though i don't know
since how long, but definitely 2004-04-27 14:22 or earlier, as that's the
date timestamp of their first commit on sourceforge) then why are people
still harping about no FOSS CAD tool existing.

Regards,

- vihan
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-11 Thread Kenneth Gonsalves



On 11-Jan-07, at 1:40 PM, Vihan Pandey wrote:

thing has been there for over 20 years and has been GPL(though i  
don't know
since how long, but definitely 2004-04-27 14:22 or earlier, as  
that's the
date timestamp of their first commit on sourceforge) then why are  
people

still harping about no FOSS CAD tool existing.


qcad *is* a good foss cad tool - but it is not 3D. I dont have the  
technical ability to evaluate this tool, but i dont think it is a 3D  
CAD thingie



--
regards

Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate, NRC-FOSS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/




--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

On Thursday 11 January 2007 14:15, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
 On 11-Jan-07, at 1:40 PM, Vihan Pandey wrote:
  thing has been there for over 20 years and has been GPL(though i
  don't know
  since how long, but definitely 2004-04-27 14:22 or earlier, as
  that's the
  date timestamp of their first commit on sourceforge) then why are
  people
  still harping about no FOSS CAD tool existing.

 qcad *is* a good foss cad tool - but it is not 3D. I dont have the
 technical ability to evaluate this tool, but i dont think it is a
 3D CAD thingie

It is.  It says solid geometry. And absolutely beats me as to why the 
hell it was hidden so long. How it compares to a drafting package 
like ACAD i have no idea. 

-- 
Rgds
JTD

-- 
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit


On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:53:01 +0530, jtd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


On Saturday 06 January 2007 00:53, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:


Autocad/Studioworks or any other as good opensource/linux variant.


http://brlcad.org/


Thank you very much.

Sachin G

--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

On Thursday 11 January 2007 17:26, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:

  4) If your code is so shallow that copying and distributing by
  college kids is going to put you on the streets, u are better off
  searching for the best street corner than running a business.

 I don't agree,
 no point in disparaging the code. Simply put, i make X to sell
 them. But my is intangible! so it can easily be replicated by  C-x,
 C-v.

And how exactly do you propose to change that. U see the guys who are 
attacking your business model dont care about your code. They want 
the binary.

 I dont care if college kids use it if they are not my customer, but
 why screw up my business model becasue these college kids might
 just hand it over to soene with enough money and resources to screw
 me up.

If your business model is screwable rest assured that closing the 
source makes it more so, by providing returns on your getting 
screwed. At the same time nobody else is contributing to making your 
product better - not even u. U are busy trying not to get screwed.


 not ideals, just bad for business!

As i said in some other thread the GNU ideals and philopshy makes 
perfect business sense for everyone except the guys who depend on 
hiding the code in the mistaken belief that it offers protection. And 
if FOSS makes sense for the customer who cares wether it makes sense 
for u or not. 

-- 
Rgds
JTD

-- 
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

On Thursday 11 January 2007 17:30, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
 On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:53:01 +0530, jtd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  On Saturday 06 January 2007 00:53, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
  Autocad/Studioworks or any other as good opensource/linux
  variant.
 
  http://brlcad.org/

 Thank you very much.

Do keep us posted on any evaluations you may do.

-- 
Rgds
JTD

-- 
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-11 Thread പ്രവീണ്‍‌|Praveen


2007/1/11, Sachin G Nambiar [EMAIL PROTECTED]:


  I dont care if college kids use it if they are not my customer, but why
screw up my business model becasue these college kids might just hand it
over to soene with enough money and resources to screw me up.



FOSS business is Free and Open Source Software + FOSS business model and you
cannot have FOSS + proprietory business model and expect it to succeed.

That is where protective licenses (like GNU GPL) comes into your rescue. If
people with enought money and resources do add a kick ass feature you also
get it for free (it is not possible if you chose a non-protective license
like BSD or X11 though)

not ideals, just bad for business!


If you want to do FOSS business dumb your proprietory business model (I

will lose market if I give out my code) and embrace a FOSS business model.

See Red Hat, Novell, Troll Tech, MySQL, JBoss, db4objects ... for example.

Cheers
Praveen

--
Value your freedom, or you will lose it, teaches history.
`Don't bother us with politics', respond those who don't want to learn.
-- Richard Stallman
Me scribbles at http://www.pravi.co.nr
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit




Do keep us posted on any evaluations you may do.

I will but not sure if iam qualified for it but i know someone who is and  
is currently using autocad in the unit.


Sachin G.

--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-11 Thread Vihan Pandey


  http://brlcad.org/

 Thank you very much.

Do keep us posted on any evaluations you may do.



In fact some text of the evaluation and few screen shots could be added to
the Wiki :-)

Regards,

- vihan
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit



people with enought money and resources do add a kick ass feature you  
also
now would that be fair? I think using, changing is ok because it's my  
right! Since iam concerned about my right am also concerned about the  
right of the maker. There are just too many parasites out there in the  
world. Does he not have a right?


See Red Hat, Novell, Troll Tech, MySQL, JBoss, db4objects ... for  
example.


Hoping that your software would break down so you would get more business?  
:) or maybe not so much bt just enough to get business. now what?

This time its idealism not business. :)

I really wish i could have the cake nd eat it too... :/

Sachin G.

--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit




And how exactly do you propose to change that. U see the guys who are
attacking your business model dont care about your code. They want
the binary.
by not allowing sharing of the code but full rights to change and modify  
it as they please.



If your business model is screwable rest assured that closing the
source makes it more so, by providing returns on your getting
screwed. At the same time nobody else is contributing to making your
product better - not even u. U are busy trying not to get screwed.

I agree ..



--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-11 Thread പ്രവീണ്‍‌|Praveen


2007/1/11, Sachin G Nambiar [EMAIL PROTECTED]:



 people with enought money and resources do add a kick ass feature you
 also
now would that be fair? I think using, changing is ok because it's my
right! Since iam concerned about my right am also concerned about the
right of the maker. There are just too many parasites out there in the
world. Does he not have a right?



Can you be clear a bit, I am confused here. my in your sentence refer to
you as the author or the receiver? Also who is he here? the parasite?


See Red Hat, Novell, Troll Tech, MySQL, JBoss, db4objects ... for
 example.

Hoping that your software would break down so you would get more business?



You kidding here ? See this story of NASA switching to MySQL from Oracle
(just one quick example for reliability)
http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2000/1204/pol-nasa-12-04-00.asp

:) or maybe not so much bt just enough to get business. now what?


Here poeple have a choice and there is competition so do you think Red Hat
will be making their system break to get business? Customers will chose
Novell or any other company which offer better solution.

This time its idealism not business. :)


Can you elaborate?

I really wish i could have the cake nd eat it too... :/


hmm


Cheers
Praveen

--
Value your freedom, or you will lose it, teaches history.
`Don't bother us with politics', respond those who don't want to learn.
-- Richard Stallman
Me scribbles at http://www.pravi.co.nr
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-11 Thread Kenneth Gonsalves



On 11-Jan-07, at 5:53 PM, jtd wrote:


http://brlcad.org/


Thank you very much.


Do keep us posted on any evaluations you may do.


could it be that there is no gui?


--
regards

Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate, NRC-FOSS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/




--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-11 Thread Debarshi Ray


http://brlcad.org/

The BRL-CAD package is a powerful Constructive Solid Geometry (CSG)


http://www.tech.oru.se/cad/varkon/

What about Varkon? If BRL-CAD is used by the US military, then Varkon
is used by SAAB, the Swedish automobile and aircraft maker.

Excerpts from the Varkon site:

VARKON can be used as a traditional CAD-system with drafting,
modelling and visualization if you want to but the real power of
VARKON is in parametric modelling and CAD applications development.
VARKON includes interactive parametric modelling in 2D or 3D but also
the unique MBS programming language integrated in the graphical
environment.

VARKON has been available for more than 15 years and the number of
users are steadily increasing with systems installed in many Europeean
countries as well as the USA. Customers range from big companies like
SAAB Aircraft to very small companies with only a few employees. There
is also an increasing number of users all over the world running the
free version of VARKON for UNIX and GNU/Linux.

VARKON is written in ANSI portable C and has been compiled and
successfully executed on many different platforms. The UNIX version
has a user interface based on X-Windows and the PC version uses
Microsoft WIN32. Currently there are VARKON systems running on
workstations from HP, SUN, IBM and SiliconGraphics and also systems on
VAX's with VMS or Intel PC's with SCO/UNIX, GNU/Linux or
Windows95/98/NT. There is even a customer  running Varkon on a Cray
T3E supercomputer with 256  300Mhz 64 bit Alpha processors !

VARKON is not expensive. The UNIX version is distributed in sourcecode
under the GNU/GPL license. There is also a prebuilt binary version for
GNU/Linux free of charge. The current price for a Windows95/NT license
is 875 USD. Support is available for all platforms including
GNU/Linux. 

Regards,
Debarshi
--
After the game the king and the pawn go into the same box.
   -- Italian proverb

--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-11 Thread Rony


Vihan Pandey wrote:

  http://brlcad.org/

 Thank you very much.

Do keep us posted on any evaluations you may do.



In fact some text of the evaluation and few screen shots could be added to
the Wiki :-)


From its writeup, it looks like a 3D modeling software like 3DS Max, 
not a drawing package like ACad. Does anyone have the installation files?


Regards,

Rony.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 



--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-11 Thread Rony


jtd wrote:



It is.  It says solid geometry. And absolutely beats me as to why the 
hell it was hidden so long. How it compares to a drafting package 
like ACAD i have no idea. 



I am trying to get one user switch to QCad and Blender (For 3D). I have 
installed Linux in one of his PCs and he has promised to learn the new 
way whenever he gets time. I observed that ACad uses .dwg and .dfx 
formats. QCad will only play the .dfx format but not recognize .dwg, so 
I told him to convert all his files from .dwg to .dfx. Also ACad appears 
to make files in both formats simultaneously as I saw 2 extensions of 
the same file in the data folders.


Regards,

Rony.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 



--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

On Thursday 11 January 2007 18:28, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
  Do keep us posted on any evaluations you may do.

 I will but not sure if iam qualified for it but i know someone who
 is and is currently using autocad in the unit.

Oh u are. As someone in close contact with enduser u will be loading 
the stuff doing, some preliminary tests etc. Getting  the app running 
is important and will generate interest amongst others too to tryout 
for themselves.
One does not have to be an ubber geek to do anything in the foss 
universe.


-- 
Rgds
JTD

-- 
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-10 Thread Sudhir Gandotra

On Tue, 2007-01-09 at 06:30 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:

 On 08-Jan-07, at 11:07 PM, Devdas Bhagat wrote:
 
  switch. Only problem is that there is no Indian Accounting  
  software that
  is any better. So you are stuck.


Kalculate for Linux is very much there, giving you


 
  So why not contribute to AVSAP?
 
 good question - in fact I have finally found a person who knows  
 accounts and willing to be a mentor for avsap - so work has restarted
 
 
 -- 
 regards
 
 Kenneth Gonsalves
 Associate, NRC-FOSS
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/
 
 
 
 

-- 
Peace, Force  Joy!   Sudhir Gandotra.  +91-98101-20918 / +91-93124-65666

OpenLX Linux OS, Linux Training, Support, Services, Product Development
   Legal.Software @ Fractional Cost : http://openlx.com 
http://kalculate.com - Linux based Accounting-Inventory

 =
Asia-Pacific Humanist Forum, Mumbai, India 16-18 Mar 2007
www.aphumanistforum.org

  Humanist Movement   www.humanistmovement.org
   Humanist Party  www.humanistparty.org
 Support Humanist Candidates in 2007 U.P. Assembly Elections
 =
-- 
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit



On 10-Jan-07, at 1:32 PM, Sudhir Gandotra wrote:


is any better. So you are stuck.



Kalculate for Linux is very much there, giving you


not free


--
regards

Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate, NRC-FOSS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/




--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-10 Thread Vihan Pandey


 Kalculate for Linux is very much there, giving you

not free



i would say HIGHLY not FOSS. In fact their website has a  wonderful
disclaimer :

quote

KalCulate is sold to its customer for their use as per the policy of each
version. This sale does not transfer the rights to\ software and/or its code
in any way to the user under any circumstances whatsoever. With the use of
KalCulate, we are givin\g a facility of accounting and inventory management
and other features of the software and we are in no way responsible for \any
data-loss or consequential lossess or any other losses, if any suffered by
anyone whosoever.

/quote

For further irritation, the disclaimer can be reached again on :

http://www.kalculate.com/disclaimer.php

Does anybody hear alarm bells?


Regards,

- vihan
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-10 Thread Sachin G Nambiar




i would say HIGHLY not FOSS. In fact their website has a  wonderful
disclaimer :


If Kcalculate provides the code along with the software it's FOSS alright.  
Freedom to change code, need not be to distribute.


Sachin G

--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-10 Thread Vihan Pandey


 i would say HIGHLY not FOSS. In fact their website has a  wonderful
 disclaimer :

If Kcalculate provides the code along with the software it's FOSS alright.
Freedom to change code, need not be to distribute.



Mate, READ the disclaimer they have written on their website before quickly
defending them and quoting FOSS philosophy.

For your benefit i'll quote it once again.

``KalCulate is sold to its customer for their use as per the policy of each
version. This sale does not transfer the rights to\ software and/or its code
in any way to the user under any circumstances whatsoever.

With the use of KalCulate, we are givin\g a facility of accounting and
inventory management and other features of the software and we are in no way
responsible for \any data-loss or consequential lossess or any other losses,
if any suffered by anyone whosoever.

If you can please show me a link where ``Kcalculate provides the code along
with the software and has a FOSS based license i will agree it is FOSS.

In fact a few google searches will tell you people criticizing the app for
not being FOSS/FLOSS :-) compatible.

Regards,

- vihan
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-10 Thread Sachin G Nambiar

Mate, READ the disclaimer they have written on their website before  
quickly

defending them and quoting FOSS philosophy.


AS i mentioned before, IF ..  .. i was just wondering for a sec if FOSS  
said anything about not being able to distribute. :)


Sachin G

--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-10 Thread Devdas Bhagat

On 10/01/07 17:45 +0530, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
 Mate, READ the disclaimer they have written on their website before  
 quickly
 defending them and quoting FOSS philosophy.
 
 AS i mentioned before, IF ..  .. i was just wondering for a sec if FOSS  
 said anything about not being able to distribute. :)

FOSS actually does imply the right to modify and distribute.

Devdas Bhagat

-- 
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-10 Thread Sachin G Nambiar





FOSS actually does imply the right to modify and distribute.


Shouldn't the term freedom be restricted to modifying the code? If a coder  
has to earn a living using principles of FOSS then the clause about free  
to distribute should be removed don't you think?


Sachin G.

--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit

2007-01-10 Thread Dinesh Joshi

On Wednesday 10 January 2007 22:55, Devdas Bhagat wrote:

 FOSS actually does imply the right to modify and distribute.

IIRC, the GPL ( I know we're not discussing GPL but it is a good license ) 
allows one to modify and NOT distribute the code as long as its for internal 
use.


-- 
Regards,
Dinesh A. Joshi

-- 
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit



On 10-Jan-07, at 5:45 PM, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:

AS i mentioned before, IF ..  .. i was just wondering for a sec  
if FOSS said anything about not being able to distribute. :)


no distribute rights === not foss


--
regards

Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate, NRC-FOSS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/




--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit



On 10-Jan-07, at 11:52 PM, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:


FOSS actually does imply the right to modify and distribute.


Shouldn't the term freedom be restricted to modifying the code? If  
a coder has to earn a living using principles of FOSS then the  
clause about free to distribute should be removed don't you think?


no - although I dont believe in RTFMing people as a rule, I would  
strongly suggest you read up something on open source and foss before  
carrying on this discussion further. Try this for starters:


http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/case_for_business.php


--
regards

Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate, NRC-FOSS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/




--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Opensource for a Small Manufacturing unit