*** For details on how to be removed from this list visit the ***
*** CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk ***
On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 07:49:12PM -0500, [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.
>
Interpretation is relative; FOSS (as FSF and OSI views the definition)
requires license compatibility. Ipso facto, stuff like CCP4 doesn't
qualify as FOSS to the FSF/OSI community (and therefore, most linux
distributions won't touch it). I would guess this is more of a
discussion for the FSF folks ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
Regards,
Tim
--
---------------------------------------------------------
Tim Fenn
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stanford University, School of Medicine
James H. Clark Center
318 Campus Drive, Room E300
Stanford, CA 94305-5432
Phone: (650) 736-1714
FAX: (650) 736-1961
---------------------------------------------------------
