*** For details on how to be removed from this list visit the *** *** CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk ***
The problem with too inclusive a definition (and one that uses the same terminology adopted by the FSF and the open-source people) is that it blurs the distinction and thus undermines (however inadvertently) their laudable goals. It's kind of like calling everyone that disagrees with US middle east policy an anti-semite -- its a political gambit but runs the risk of having the opposite from the intended effect. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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------ > > >
