On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 01:55:51 +0530, Rony
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 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
This is kinda funny, since I was involved when we created that
clause :) But you know, you ar throwing in red herrings: OSS is OSS,
as defined by that definition; and that required the resulting
programs to be distributed, even if you distribute the sources as
original + patch-set.
OSS requires that the software be distributed, even
commercially, with modifications.
The stuff we were talking about is not OSS. Nothin you quote
below changes that.
Having cleared that, let me comment on the rest of your posting
(which, I think, quotes over much from commonly available documents,
but hey).
> 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.
So, none of this allows you to not permit distribution of
modified binaries under a commercial license. That part is something
you just made up, right?
This clause was essentially so we did not throw out TeX. The
release original with patches clause was reluctantly considered good
enough, since in practice Debian does distribute original + patches
in the source packaging, but it came in with great debate.
Also reluctantly added was the rename on modification
clauses; again, for TeX.
None of this means that software considered free under the
DFSG is not free software (since the OSI definition is essentially
the DFSG with the references to Debian removed).
>> 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?
From the article:
Nearly all open source software is free software; the two terms
describe almost the same category of software.
>> > Again a mix-up of OSS and FOSS.
So, F and OSS in FOSS are not the same thing. We know
that. But the OSS IN FOSS is the same as the OSS alone. Open Source
Software, as defined by the modified DFSG.
>> 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.
That says nothing about OSS not being the same as in Free/OSS
part. The OSS in F/OSS is the same as trhe stand alone OSS, and
nothing in there talks about OSS as in FOSS versus plain old OSS.
They talk about differences between free software and OSS, so
the fact that people bundle them together as FOSS is the part that
muddles the differences. FOSS = FS + OSS; FS +1 OSS; but the OSS part
still requires source code to be distributed in binary form after
changes have been made.
> "Free software. Open source. If it's the same software, does it
> matter which name you use?
Yup, same software, different names.
> "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."
Well, we did not quire derive it from the FSF definition --
consider the GFDL is not considered to be free according to the DFSG,
which is almost word for word what the OSI people created when they
copied the DFSG.
Hope that clarifies things a bit.
manoj
--
"I don't believe in god because I don't believe in Mother Goose."
Clarence Darrow
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
