On 16 Jan, William Scott wrote: > it is perfectly reasonable for CCP4 to charge drug > companies for the software, rather than make the British taxpayer > underwrite some of their research and development.
This may be a reasonable insight, and it illustrates the need for a more inclusive definition for FOSS. Many non-commercial licenses have as much validity as the FSF definition in their own context, and as long as the source code is publicly accessible, then software that is free for non-commercial or academic distribution is FOSS in my opinion. Regards, Michael L. Love Ph.D Department of Biophysics and Biophysical Chemistry School of Medicine Johns Hopkins University 725 N. Wolfe Street Room 608B WBSB Baltimore MD 21205-2185 Interoffice Mail: 608B WBSB, SoM office: 410-614-2267 lab: 410-614-3179 fax: 410-502-6910 cell: 443-824-3451 http://www.gnu-darwin.org/ -- Visit proclus realm! http://proclus.tripod.com/ -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GMU/S d+@ s: a+ C++++ UBULI++++$ P+ L+++(++++) E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++@ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-(--)@ b !DI D- G e++++ h--- r+++ y++++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
pgpDcuTBawoHv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
