Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 20:19:32 +0530, Rony
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.
Read point 4 from that link and emphasis is added...
"4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
The license *may* *restrict* source-code from being distributed in
modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch
files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at
build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software
built from modified source code. The license may require derived works
to carry a different name or version number from the original software.
Rationale: Encouraging lots of improvement is a good thing, but
users have a right to know who is responsible for the software they are
using. Authors and maintainers have reciprocal right to know what
they're being asked to support and protect their reputations.
Accordingly, an open-source license must guarantee that source be
readily available, but may require that it be distributed as pristine
base sources plus patches. In this way, "unofficial" changes can be made
available but readily distinguished from the base source."
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 made you think so?
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)
From the gnu link
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html that you
posted.
"Free software. Open source. If it's the same software, does it matter
which name you use? Yes, because different words convey different ideas.
While a free program by any other name would give you the same freedom
today, establishing freedom in a lasting way depends above all on
teaching people to value freedom. If you want to help do this, it is
essential to speak about “free software.”...... These are the words of
Father Ignutius himself.
More from him in the same article.....
"The official definition of “open source software” (which is published
by the Open Source Initiative and too long to cite here) was derived
indirectly from our criteria for free software. It is not the same; it
is a little looser in some respects, so open source supporters have
accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive of the
users. Nonetheless, it is fairly close to our definition in practice."
"Some try to disparage the free software movement by comparing our
disagreement with open source to the disagreements of those radical
groups. They have it backwards. We disagree with the open source camp on
the basic goals and values, but their views and ours lead in many cases
to the same practical behavior--such as developing free software."
"As a result, people from the free software movement and the open source
camp often work together on practical projects such as software
development. It is remarkable that such different philosophical views
can so often motivate different people to participate in the same
projects. Nonetheless, these views are very different, and there are
situations where they lead to very different actions."
"The main initial motivation for the term “open source software” is that
the ethical ideas of “free software” make some people uneasy. That's
true: talking about freedom, about ethical issues, about
responsibilities as well as convenience, is asking people to think about
things they might prefer to ignore, such as whether their conduct is
ethical. This can trigger discomfort, and some people may simply close
their minds to it. It does not follow that we ought to stop talking
about these things.
However, that is what the leaders of “open source” decided to do. They
figured that by keeping quiet about ethics and freedom, and talking only
about the immediate practical benefits of certain free software, they
might be able to “sell” the software more effectively to certain users,
especially business."
"Conclusion
As the advocates of open source draw new users into our community, we
free software activists have to work even more to bring the issue of
freedom to those new users' attention. We have to say, “It's free
software and it gives you freedom!”--more and louder than ever. Every
time you say “free software” rather than “open source,” you help our
campaign."
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
