[ILUG-BOM] Fwd: Scilab Workshop

[Anurag]

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

Subject: Scilab Workshop
Date: Friday 16 February 2007 13:52
From: Scilab Workshop <***@iitb.ac.in>
To: Nagarjuna G <***@gnowledge.org>

Dear Dr. Nagarjuna, can you please post this news in appropriate fora?
Thanks and regards. Kannan

---------------
IIT Bombay is organising a Scilab Workshop, jointly with the Scilab
Development Team at INRIA, France. This Workshop will be
conducted at IIT Bombay, during 7-8 March 2007. The details of
this Workshop are available at
http://ekalavya.it.iitb.ac.in/scilab_course.do. An announcement
of this Workshop also appears prominently at the Home Page of
Scilab, namely, www.scilab.org.

You may know that Scilab is a FREE software, having capabilities
similar to the industry standard Matlab. We have adopted Scilab
for several courses at IIT Bombay. We have found Scilab to be an
attractive alternative to Matlab.

This Workshop will consist of introductory and advanced level
talks on the use of Scilab. In addition, we plan to discuss
strategies to take its use forward in India. We would also
discuss whether it is possible to participate in the development
of Scilab and how well to provide support to end users.

We can provide accommodation in our Guest House for those who register
early. In case you have any question, please write to me at
***@iitb.ac.in.

Thanks and best wishes.

Kannan Moudgalya

-------------------------------------------------------

[Baishampayan Ghose]

On Friday 16 February 2007 09:05 PM, Anurag cobbled together some glyphs

Post by Anurag
This Workshop will consist of introductory and advanced level
talks on the use of Scilab. In addition, we plan to discuss
strategies to take its use forward in India. We would also
discuss whether it is possible to participate in the development
of Scilab and how well to provide support to end users.

Scilab is neither a Free Software nor an Open Source Software, since it
doesn't allow commercial distribution of a modified version. It's wrong
for the organisers to create a confusion among the people by making such
false claims.
For numerical computations, I would recommend GNU Octave as an
alternative to MATLAB & Scilab.

Regards,
BG

- --
Baishampayan Ghose <***@ubuntu.com>
Ubuntu -- Linux for Human Beings
http://www.ubuntu.com/

1024D/86361B74
BB2C E244 15AD 05C5 523A 90E7 4249 3494 8636 1B74

[Harsh Busa]

Post by Baishampayan Ghose
Scilab is neither a Free Software nor an Open Source Software, since it
doesn't allow commercial distribution of a modified version. It's wrong
for the organisers to create a confusion among the people by making such
false claims.

site clearly says that their license does not comply with FSF

http://www.scilab.org/legal/index_legal.php?page=faq.html#q6

but the software can be categorized as open source s/w.

Harsh

[Baishampayan Ghose]

On Friday 16 February 2007 10:55 PM, Harsh Busa cobbled together some

Post by Harsh Busa

Post by Baishampayan Ghose
Scilab is neither a Free Software nor an Open Source Software, since it
doesn't allow commercial distribution of a modified version. It's wrong
for the organisers to create a confusion among the people by making such
false claims.

site clearly says that their license does not comply with FSF
http://www.scilab.org/legal/index_legal.php?page=faq.html#q6
but the software can be categorized as open source s/w.

It's not even ``Open Source''. Please read the Open Source Definition
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php.

Regards,
BG

- --
Baishampayan Ghose <***@ubuntu.com>
Ubuntu -- Linux for Human Beings
http://www.ubuntu.com/

1024D/86361B74
BB2C E244 15AD 05C5 523A 90E7 4249 3494 8636 1B74

[Harsh Busa]

Post by Baishampayan Ghose
It's not even ``Open Source''. Please read the Open Source Definition
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php.

ok

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

Post by Baishampayan Ghose

Post by Harsh Busa
http://www.scilab.org/legal/index_legal.php?page=faq.html#q6
but the software can be categorized as open source s/w.

It's not even ``Open Source''. Please read the Open Source Definition
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php.

but the source is available - so far better than matlab. God save us
from purists

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

Post by Baishampayan Ghose
Scilab is neither a Free Software nor an Open Source Software,
since it
doesn't allow commercial distribution of a modified version

it is open source. however the license is not recognised by OSI - and
scilab makes this very clear on its own web site

[Baishampayan Ghose]

On Saturday 17 February 2007 10:17 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves cobbled

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves

Post by Baishampayan Ghose
Scilab is neither a Free Software nor an Open Source Software, since it
doesn't allow commercial distribution of a modified version

it is open source. however the license is not recognised by OSI - and
scilab makes this very clear on its own web site

Heh, now you have come up with your own definition of what is ``Open
Source'' too? If the license doesn't satisfy the ``Open Source
Definition'', it can not be ``Open Source''. Ditto with the ``Free
Software Definition''. Merely disclosing the source (with a lot of
restrictions) doesn't make something FOSS. There are a lot of additional
Freedoms which ought to be provided with that too. If what you say is
true, even M$ Windows is ``Open Source'' since M$ does ``share'' the
source with _some_ people under _some_ conditions.

Regards,
BG

- --
Baishampayan Ghose <***@ubuntu.com>
Ubuntu -- Linux for Human Beings
http://www.ubuntu.com/

1024D/86361B74
BB2C E244 15AD 05C5 523A 90E7 4249 3494 8636 1B74

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

Post by Baishampayan Ghose

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves
it is open source. however the license is not recognised by OSI - and
scilab makes this very clear on its own web site

Heh, now you have come up with your own definition of what is ``Open
Source'' too? If the license doesn't satisfy the ``Open Source
Definition'', it can not be ``Open Source''. Ditto with the ``Free
Software Definition''. Merely disclosing the source (with a lot of
restrictions) doesn't make something FOSS. There are a lot of
additional

you are getting confused between ideology and practice. Whether you
like it or not, it *is* open source. The source is available and you
can modify and use it how you like and distribute the modifications
subject to certain limitations.

The license is *not* recognised as OSS by OSI, nor is it recognised
by FSF as FOSS. However there is no law in existence which recognises
OSI or FSF as the sole arbitrators as to what is OSS and what is not.

*I* consider it OSS - and I have the freedom to do so.

Post by Baishampayan Ghose
Freedoms which ought to be provided with that too. If what you say is
true, even M$ Windows is ``Open Source'' since M$ does ``share'' the
source with _some_ people under _some_ conditions.

not so. If you cannot see the difference between what M$ does and
what scilab is doing, I feel very sorry for you

[Baishampayan Ghose]

On Saturday 17 February 2007 01:37 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves cobbled

Post by Baishampayan Ghose
Heh, now you have come up with your own definition of what is ``Open
Source'' too? If the license doesn't satisfy the ``Open Source
Definition'', it can not be ``Open Source''. Ditto with the ``Free
Software Definition''. Merely disclosing the source (with a lot of
restrictions) doesn't make something FOSS. There are a lot of additional

you are getting confused between ideology and practice. Whether you like
it or not, it *is* open source. The source is available and you can
modify and use it how you like and distribute the modifications subject
to certain limitations.

If I can't sell a modified version of Scilab (keeping the current
license intact), how is it Open Source / Free Software? FOSS is not
against business. It never was.
Open Source is what the Open Source definition says. You can't just
interpret it in your own way and claim whatever license you like as an
Open Source license.

The license is *not* recognised as OSS by OSI, nor is it recognised by
FSF as FOSS. However there is no law in existence which recognises OSI
or FSF as the sole arbitrators as to what is OSS and what is not.
*I* consider it OSS - and I have the freedom to do so.

I can see that you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. Let me
repeat -- the sheer availability of the source doesn't make a software
FOSS. Commercial modifications are an important part of all FOSS.
You are free to consider it as whatever you want, but at the same time,
I am free, nay entitled to reject your [mis]interpretation with equal
disdain.

Post by Baishampayan Ghose
Freedoms which ought to be provided with that too. If what you say is
true, even M$ Windows is ``Open Source'' since M$ does ``share'' the
source with _some_ people under _some_ conditions.

not so. If you cannot see the difference between what M$ does and what
scilab is doing, I feel very sorry for you

M$ puts restrictions on us by not giving us the source (with all the
necessary freedoms). Scilab puts restrictions on us by giving us the
source only subject to some limitations.
I don't see any difference between the two.
What you need to understand is that FOSS is not just about the
availability of the source code. It never was.

Regards,
BG

- --
Baishampayan Ghose <***@ubuntu.com>
Ubuntu -- Linux for Human Beings
http://www.ubuntu.com/

1024D/86361B74
BB2C E244 15AD 05C5 523A 90E7 4249 3494 8636 1B74

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

Post by Baishampayan Ghose
I can see that you are arguing just for the sake of arguing.

no

Post by Baishampayan Ghose
Let me
repeat -- the sheer availability of the source doesn't make a software
FOSS. Commercial modifications are an important part of all FOSS.

who is talking about FOSS? I said I consider it Open Source Software
- OSS

Post by Baishampayan Ghose
You are free to consider it as whatever you want,

thanks

Post by Baishampayan Ghose
but at the same time,
I am free, nay entitled to reject your [mis]interpretation with equal
disdain.

cool - go ahead

Post by Baishampayan Ghose

Post by Baishampayan Ghose
Freedoms which ought to be provided with that too. If what you say is
true, even M$ Windows is ``Open Source'' since M$ does ``share'' the
source with _some_ people under _some_ conditions.

not so. If you cannot see the difference between what M$ does and what
scilab is doing, I feel very sorry for you

M$ puts restrictions on us by not giving us the source (with all the
necessary freedoms). Scilab puts restrictions on us by giving us the
source only subject to some limitations.
I don't see any difference between the two.

that is why I feel sorry for you

Post by Baishampayan Ghose
What you need to understand is that FOSS is not just about the
availability of the source code. It never was.

we are not talking about FOSS here

[Baishampayan Ghose]

On Saturday 17 February 2007 02:03 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves cobbled

Post by Baishampayan Ghose
Let me
repeat -- the sheer availability of the source doesn't make a software
FOSS. Commercial modifications are an important part of all FOSS.

who is talking about FOSS? I said I consider it Open Source Software - OSS

Oh, so FOSS is different from OSS? I thought FOSS was simply a way to
combine the words Free Software (FS) and Open Source Software (OSS) to
say Free & Open Source Software (FOSS).
If you go by the definition, then FS is not different from OSS. So
basically all FS is OSS and vice versa (except a *very few* which are not).
But I guess I was wrong ...

Regards,
BG

- --
Baishampayan Ghose <***@ubuntu.com>
Ubuntu -- Linux for Human Beings
http://www.ubuntu.com/

1024D/86361B74
BB2C E244 15AD 05C5 523A 90E7 4249 3494 8636 1B74

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

Post by Baishampayan Ghose

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves
who is talking about FOSS? I said I consider it Open Source
Software - OSS

Oh, so FOSS is different from OSS?

yes

Post by Baishampayan Ghose
I thought FOSS was simply a way to
combine the words Free Software (FS) and Open Source Software (OSS) to
say Free & Open Source Software (FOSS).

no

Post by Baishampayan Ghose
If you go by the definition, then FS is not different from OSS. So
basically all FS is OSS and vice versa (except a *very few* which are not).

all FS is OSS, but not all OSS is FS

Post by Baishampayan Ghose
But I guess I was wrong ..

yes

[Harsh Busa]

Post by Baishampayan Ghose

who is talking about FOSS? I said I consider it Open Source Software - OSS

Oh, so FOSS is different from OSS? I thought FOSS was simply a way to

yes now u need some home work :-) ( disclaimer : no flame intended )--
__________________________
http://www.ebackend.com/blog

[Baishampayan Ghose]

On Saturday 17 February 2007 03:03 PM, Harsh Busa cobbled together some

Post by Harsh Busa

Post by Baishampayan Ghose

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves
who is talking about FOSS? I said I consider it Open Source Software

- OSS
Oh, so FOSS is different from OSS? I thought FOSS was simply a way to

yes now u need some home work :-) ( disclaimer : no flame intended )--

The thing is, Kenneth does not know what he is talking about. He has
already contradicted himself in his mails. But then, I have better
things to do than trying to convince someone who simply doesn't want to
listen. :)

Regards,
BG

- --
Baishampayan Ghose <***@ubuntu.com>
Ubuntu -- Linux for Human Beings
http://www.ubuntu.com/

1024D/86361B74
BB2C E244 15AD 05C5 523A 90E7 4249 3494 8636 1B74

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

Post by Baishampayan Ghose

Post by Harsh Busa
yes now u need some home work :-) ( disclaimer : no flame
intended )--

The thing is, Kenneth does not know what he is talking about. He has
already contradicted himself in his mails. But then, I have better
things to do than trying to convince someone who simply doesn't want to
listen. :)

typical - loose an argument, throw mud and run away

[Rony]

Post by Baishampayan Ghose
Oh, so FOSS is different from OSS? I thought FOSS was simply a way to
combine the words Free Software (FS) and Open Source Software (OSS) to
say Free & Open Source Software (FOSS).
If you go by the definition, then FS is not different from OSS. So
basically all FS is OSS and vice versa (except a *very few* which are not).
But I guess I was wrong ...

Free software has the 4 freedoms. OSS may not have the 4 freedoms.
That's why Free software is refered to as 'Libre' software and I heard
the FSF chief use this term in his speech too at TIFR.

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

[Dhawal Doshy]

Post by Rony
That's why Free software is refered to as 'Libre' software and I heard
the FSF chief use this term in his speech too at TIFR.

libre == free in french OR was it italian OR spanish?? f*** it!! libre
is just 'free' in a different language.. you could call it 'fookat'
software if you choose to.. btw whats the correct word for 'fookat' in
pure hindi??

[Dhawal Doshy]

Post by Dhawal Doshy

Post by Rony
That's why Free software is refered to as 'Libre' software and I heard
the FSF chief use this term in his speech too at TIFR.

libre == free in french OR was it italian OR spanish?? f*** it!! libre
is just 'free' in a different language.. you could call it 'fookat'
software if you choose to.. btw whats the correct word for 'fookat' in
pure hindi??

s/free/freedom/ (printing mistake ;-) )

[Dhawal Doshy]

Post by Dhawal Doshy

Post by Dhawal Doshy

Post by Rony
That's why Free software is refered to as 'Libre' software and I
heard the FSF chief use this term in his speech too at TIFR.

libre == free in french OR was it italian OR spanish?? f*** it!! libre
is just 'free' in a different language.. you could call it 'fookat'
software if you choose to.. btw whats the correct word for 'fookat' in
pure hindi??

s/free/freedom/ (printing mistake ;-) )

crazy!! enter 'vi last_sent_email' press 'dd' to delete stupidity.. ':wq'

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/libre

[Dhawal Doshy]

Post by Dhawal Doshy

Post by Dhawal Doshy

Post by Dhawal Doshy

Post by Rony
That's why Free software is refered to as 'Libre' software and I
heard the FSF chief use this term in his speech too at TIFR.

libre == free in french OR was it italian OR spanish?? f*** it!!
libre is just 'free' in a different language.. you could call it
'fookat' software if you choose to.. btw whats the correct word for
'fookat' in pure hindi??

s/free/freedom/ (printing mistake ;-) )

crazy!! enter 'vi last_sent_email' press 'dd' to delete stupidity.. ':wq'
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/libre

*THREAD HIJACKING* *better than meaningless argument* *THREAD HIJACKING*

I love Linus.. here is a recent quote from him.

'Now the question is, will people take the patches, or will they keep
their heads up their arses and claim that configurability is bad, even
when it makes things more logical, and code more readable.'

The context is that Linus has submitted some patches to GNOME and is
waiting for their response..

*THREAD HIJACKING* *about who can piss highest* *THREAD HIJACKING*

[Baishampayan Ghose]

On Saturday 17 February 2007 09:05 PM, Dhawal Doshy cobbled together

Post by Dhawal Doshy

Post by Rony
That's why Free software is refered to as 'Libre' software and I heard
the FSF chief use this term in his speech too at TIFR.

libre == free in french OR was it italian OR spanish?? f*** it!! libre
is just 'free' in a different language.. you could call it 'fookat'
software if you choose to.. btw whats the correct word for 'fookat' in
pure hindi??

Libre in Spanish means ``Free as in Freedom'' (Swatantra or Mukt in
Hindi). The Spanish for ``Fookat'' would be Gratis. The correct word for
Gratis in Hindi would be Muft or Binamulya.

Regards,
BG

- --
Baishampayan Ghose <***@ubuntu.com>
Ubuntu -- Linux for Human Beings
http://www.ubuntu.com/

1024D/86361B74
BB2C E244 15AD 05C5 523A 90E7 4249 3494 8636 1B74

[Dhawal Doshy]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Saturday 17 February 2007 09:05 PM, Dhawal Doshy cobbled together

Post by Dhawal Doshy

Post by Rony
That's why Free software is refered to as 'Libre' software and I heard
the FSF chief use this term in his speech too at TIFR.

libre == free in french OR was it italian OR spanish?? f*** it!! libre
is just 'free' in a different language.. you could call it 'fookat'
software if you choose to.. btw whats the correct word for 'fookat' in
pure hindi??

Libre in Spanish means ``Free as in Freedom'' (Swatantra or Mukt in
Hindi). The Spanish for ``Fookat'' would be Gratis. The correct word for
Gratis in Hindi would be Muft or Binamulya.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/libre has a different take on libre.

Also hindi was never a strong point for me (and most bombay/mumbai
junta).. bambaiya, a bad mix of more urdu less hindi is..

[Manoj Srivastava]

Post by Dhawal Doshy

Post by Rony
That's why Free software is refered to as 'Libre' software and I
heard the FSF chief use this term in his speech too at TIFR.

libre == free in french OR was it italian OR spanish?? f*** it!!
libre is just 'free' in a different language.. you could call it
'fookat' software if you choose to.. btw whats the correct word for
'fookat' in pure hindi??

No, fookat, or Gratis, or "free as in free beer" is not what
free software is all a bout. Free software is about "free as in free
speech". So free software is not no cost software; it is software
that allows freedom to the broader community of free software folks.

Without the freedom, all you have is disclosed source. Not
free or open source.

Visible source is a required, but not sufficient,
characteristic of Free or Open Source Software.

manoj

[Dhawal Doshy]

Post by Manoj Srivastava

Post by Dhawal Doshy

Post by Rony
That's why Free software is refered to as 'Libre' software and I
heard the FSF chief use this term in his speech too at TIFR.

libre == free in french OR was it italian OR spanish?? f*** it!!
libre is just 'free' in a different language.. you could call it
'fookat' software if you choose to.. btw whats the correct word for
'fookat' in pure hindi??

No, fookat, or Gratis, or "free as in free beer" is not what
free software is all a bout. Free software is about "free as in free
speech". So free software is not no cost software; it is software
that allows freedom to the broader community of free software folks.
Without the freedom, all you have is disclosed source. Not
free or open source.
Visible source is a required, but not sufficient,
characteristic of Free or Open Source Software.

i am not debating the meaning of 'free software'.. i am debating the
line "That's why Free software is refered to as 'Libre' software". Libre
means free/fookat/muft and can be used as such.

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

Post by Dhawal Doshy
libre == free in french OR was it italian OR spanish?? f*** it!!
libre is just 'free' in a different language.. you could call it
'fookat' software if you choose to.. btw whats the correct word for
'fookat' in pure hindi??

the word libre is used to qualify the word 'free' which means two
things in the english language - both freedom and without cost. This
problem does not arise in indian languages - without cost == ilavasam
and freedom == suthanantharam

[Dhawal Doshy]

Post by Dhawal Doshy
libre == free in french OR was it italian OR spanish?? f*** it!! libre
is just 'free' in a different language.. you could call it 'fookat'
software if you choose to.. btw whats the correct word for 'fookat' in
pure hindi??

the word libre is used to qualify the word 'free' which means two things
in the english language - both freedom and without cost. This problem
does not arise in indian languages - without cost == ilavasam and
freedom == suthanantharam

damn!! should have opted for sanskrit over french..

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

Post by Dhawal Doshy

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves
suthanantharam

damn!! should have opted for sanskrit over french..

thamizh

[Philip Tellis]

libre == free in french OR was it italian OR spanish?? f*** it!! libre is
just 'free' in a different language.. you could call it 'fookat' software if
you choose to.. btw whats the correct word for 'fookat' in pure hindi??

libre != fookat.

libre = free in the liberty sense (french derived from latin)
fookat = free in the monetary sense (muft in pure hindi)

What you really want is "mukt" or "azad"

[saurabh daptardar]

Hi,
There have been great discussions regarding "software A" not satisfying
"clause B" of GPL and hence should not be used. Scilab discussion reflects
the same view but the open source community will appreciate more if someone
says , "this is a software developed by us which provides more features
than Matlab ( or Scilab ) , satisifies all clauses of GPL ( or any other
licenses which you like ) and is totally reliable.

To me it looks like the open source community in India is moving on the
lines of Indian IT industry.There is more hype than substance . Despite
employee strengths touching 80000 in some big sofware giants, no Indian
company is ready to look beyond outsourcing . They are not ready to come up
with their own solutions -- be it products or services .Their world is
centered about offering sevices ( an euphemism for labour ) to their
clients . Indian software giants claim to have clients from the fortune
500 companies like M$ .Those of you who have worked there know that work
carried by our companies is not of strategic importance to these fortune
500 companies.

Let us ensure that the same thing does not happen to the believers of open
source. It is always easy to believe in a philosophy but what is more
important that you implement it.

Post by Pradeepto Bhattacharya
Since I am in a argumentive mood, lets say a company
requires huge lot numerical calculations for their project? Loads of
them. And this project will make or break them. They find that MatLab
does everything for them. SciLab comes close but many crucial features
are missing in GNU Octave. What would they do?
Not use the first two since you advised against it. (Lets assume that
they hired you as consultant by paying loads of $$$.) So you take
their money as fees and tell them not possible because they can't use
Mat/SciLab and Octave doesn't worky. One solution is they add all the
features to Octave and then use it. Now that's an ok advise but in
real world there are deadlines which they will (surely) miss because
they started buidling bricks inhouse instead of making the house.

I agree with him . Open source is not the only thing which makes a good
software ; software quality is equally important . However , at the same
time , I would like to say that open source philosophy can be used as an
effective tool for the development of the nation.

Long before the open source pundits were born Rabindra Nath Tagore had
written :

Where the mind is without fear
and the head is held high;
Where knowledge is free;
Where the world has not been
broken up into fragments
by narrow domestic walls; ...
Where the clear stream of reason
has not lost its way into the
dreary desert sand of dead habit; ...
Into that heaven of freedom,
my Father, let my country awake.
--- Rabindra Nath Tagore

That is my idea of open source --- a free and liberated society.

Regards,
Sourabh

[Devdas Bhagat]

On 18/02/07 14:05 +0530, saurabh daptardar wrote:
<snip>

Post by saurabh daptardar
with their own solutions -- be it products or services .Their world is
centered about offering sevices ( an euphemism for labour ) to their

Nothing wrong with offering development services. The issue we have is
with calling that a high tech job.

Devdas Bhagat

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

Post by saurabh daptardar
To me it looks like the open source community in India is moving on the
lines of Indian IT industry.There is more hype than substance . Despite
employee strengths touching 80000 in some big sofware giants, no Indian
company is ready to look beyond outsourcing . They are not ready to come up

There's a cool article in the Times of India today titled 'A Myth
called the Indian Programmer'. That article, in many ways gives you a
reason why the 80,000 really won't get you anywhere with respect to
innovation and technical expertise.

The FOSS community in India doesn't seem to be very big. And even
among them, very few actually contribute to anything other than
mailing lists.

Post by saurabh daptardar
with their own solutions -- be it products or services .Their world is
centered about offering sevices ( an euphemism for labour ) to their
clients . Indian software giants claim to have clients from the fortune

Most of the service providers (TCS, Infy, etc) do have their own
products. They're not visible to us because they're mainly enterprise
systems. Of course, these are not high tech solutions. They can't
afford them for obvious reasons (lack of skilled 'labour').

Post by saurabh daptardar
Let us ensure that the same thing does not happen to the believers of open
source. It is always easy to believe in a philosophy but what is more
important that you implement it.

The believers are doing something about it in their own ways. Again,
much of it may not be visible unless you decide to look.


Regards,

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

Post by Siddhesh Poyarekar
The FOSS community in India doesn't seem to be very big. And even
among them, very few actually contribute to anything other than
mailing lists.

a suprisingly large number of the serious developers never join local
mailing lists

Post by Siddhesh Poyarekar

Post by saurabh daptardar
with their own solutions -- be it products or services .Their
world is
centered about offering sevices ( an euphemism for labour ) to their
clients . Indian software giants claim to have clients from the fortune

Most of the service providers (TCS, Infy, etc) do have their own
products.

name one

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves
name one

Finacle, Assent, Tradex, MasterCraft, Flexcube.

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

Post by Siddhesh Poyarekar
Finacle, Assent, Tradex, MasterCraft, Flexcube.

Flexcube - Oracle global on the site, so is this infosys or tcs?
finacle - infosys
assent infrex consult tradex - tcs

looks like tcs has some products going - never would have believed it.

[Dhawal Doshy]

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves

Post by Siddhesh Poyarekar
Finacle, Assent, Tradex, MasterCraft, Flexcube.

Flexcube - Oracle global on the site, so is this infosys or tcs?

None.. AFAIR it is 'iflex solutions' (now an oracle company)

[Dhawal Doshy]

Post by Philip Tellis

Post by Dhawal Doshy
libre == free in french OR was it italian OR spanish?? f*** it!! libre
is just 'free' in a different language.. you could call it 'fookat'
software if you choose to.. btw whats the correct word for 'fookat' in
pure hindi??

libre != fookat.

nopes libre == fookat

Post by Philip Tellis
libre = free in the liberty sense (french derived from latin)

This is your interpretation.

Post by Philip Tellis
fookat = free in the monetary sense (muft in pure hindi)

btw, muft is urdu.

Post by Philip Tellis
What you really want is "mukt" or "azad"

True.. but libre == fookat..

[Mrugesh Karnik]

Post by Dhawal Doshy

Post by Philip Tellis

Post by Dhawal Doshy
libre == free in french OR was it italian OR spanish?? f*** it!! libre
is just 'free' in a different language.. you could call it 'fookat'
software if you choose to.. btw whats the correct word for 'fookat' in
pure hindi??

libre != fookat.

nopes libre == fookat

Post by Philip Tellis
libre = free in the liberty sense (french derived from latin)

This is your interpretation.

Post by Philip Tellis
fookat = free in the monetary sense (muft in pure hindi)

btw, muft is urdu.

Post by Philip Tellis
What you really want is "mukt" or "azad"

True.. but libre == fookat..

Uhhh, no Philip is correct.

libre = free as in freedom, not free as in cost

Said to me by a friend of mine who knows French and hasn't heard of Linux.

[mehul]

Post by Mrugesh Karnik
Uhhh, no Philip is correct.
libre = free as in freedom, not free as in cost
Said to me by a friend of mine who knows French and hasn't heard of Linux.

I also thought so far libre is freedom, though I know zero french.
Also, Wikipedia says libre means freedom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_as_in_beer

[Pradeepto Bhattacharya]

Hi

Post by Mrugesh Karnik

Post by Dhawal Doshy
True.. but libre == fookat..

Uhhh, no Philip is correct.
libre = free as in freedom, not free as in cost
Said to me by a friend of mine who knows French and hasn't heard of Linux.

Right! Its derived from ...
French liberté = Latin libertas == freedom
"logiciels libres" = free software ( French )

Cheers!

Pradeepto

[Dhawal Doshy]

Post by Pradeepto Bhattacharya
Hi

Post by Mrugesh Karnik

Post by Dhawal Doshy
True.. but libre == fookat..

Uhhh, no Philip is correct.
libre = free as in freedom, not free as in cost
Said to me by a friend of mine who knows French and hasn't heard of Linux.

Right! Its derived from ...
French liberté = Latin libertas == freedom
"logiciels libres" = free software ( French )

Wrong!! libre == free.. also liberté != libre though they have common
roots in Latin.

[Mrugesh Karnik]

Post by Dhawal Doshy

Post by Pradeepto Bhattacharya
Hi

Post by Mrugesh Karnik

Post by Dhawal Doshy
True.. but libre == fookat..

Uhhh, no Philip is correct.
libre = free as in freedom, not free as in cost
Said to me by a friend of mine who knows French and hasn't heard of Linux.

Right! Its derived from ...
French liberté = Latin libertas == freedom
"logiciels libres" = free software ( French )

Wrong!! libre == free.. also liberté != libre though they have common
roots in Latin.

Dude where do you think the word `liberty' and its meaning comes from?

[Pradeepto Bhattacharya]

Hi,

Post by Dhawal Doshy

Post by Pradeepto Bhattacharya
Hi

Post by Mrugesh Karnik

Post by Dhawal Doshy
True.. but libre == fookat..

Uhhh, no Philip is correct.
libre = free as in freedom, not free as in cost
Said to me by a friend of mine who knows French and hasn't heard of Linux.

Right! Its derived from ...
French liberté = Latin libertas == freedom
"logiciels libres" = free software ( French )

Wrong!! libre == free.. also liberté != libre though they have common
roots in Latin.

*sigh*. Sure I am wrong and so is the *french native* I
asked this question. Perhaps he was learning some other language since
last 30 years somewhere in Cheval Blanc, France. He also said -
logiciel is a made-up word, which starts with "logic" and ends like
"matériel" (hardware). ( but what the hell does he know? He's just a
french by birth. )

I wanted to reply earlier but Philip and Mrugesh had
already replied. But you displayed weird sense of humour ( confer that
stupid hsc joke, whatever it meant ), I thought I should reply.

Btw, you quoted some links. Did you even bother to read
them before posting. It had many meanings of Libre like ...

Principal Translations:
libre (pas occupé) adj free (not occupied)
libre (chambre) adj vacant (room)

marché libre open market ( note open market and not
fukat/help-your-self-its-free-market)

zone de libre-échange nf free trade area
monde libre nm free world
nage libre free-swimming
nation libre nf free nation
né libre freeborn
cité libre nf free city ....... many such meanings.

Nowhere it's mentioned free-of-charge. The word
money,paid,charge doesnot appear on that page.

Also you mention babelfish translation site, imho,
translational tools are not perfect (yet).

Cheers!

Pradeepto

[Dhawal Doshy]

Post by Pradeepto Bhattacharya
Btw, you quoted some links. Did you even bother to read
them before posting. It had many meanings of Libre like ...

In that case read this one..
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/libre

# free, without obligation
temps libre — free time

Note that it doesn't expand obligation.. obligation could be monetary as
well..

Also in latin
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/liber

liber simply means free.. in what context is NOT specified.

[Manoj Srivastava]

Btw, you quoted some links. Did you even bother to read them before
posting. It had many meanings of Libre like ...

In that case read this one.. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/libre

free, without obligation

temps libre — free time
Note that it doesn't expand obligation.. obligation could be
monetary as well..
Also in latin http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/liber
liber simply means free.. in what context is NOT specified.

When you specify the context, especially for the free
software community, you get this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libre#Libre


You are not speaking latin here. You are using a word from a
romance language to refer to a commonly accepted designation in the
software community, and i this specialized context, libre has to do
with liberty, and free as in free speech; as opposed to gratis, which
is hte free beer sense you are looking for.

Now, you can continue to jam your fingers in your ears and
tells us "nyah, nyah, I am not heeearing youuuu", but you'll just
look silly in the broader free software community if you go around
telling people that libre software refers to free as in beer.

We are talking about concepts and philosophy that has been well
established, been around for decades, and is commonly accepted by an
international community numbering in the millions. You might be
wholly ignorant of the philosophy or the broad understanding, but
trust me, you hgave arrived on the scene far too late to dicate what
the acronym FLOSS expands to and means.

People have been trying nicely to tell you what the commonly
accepted meaning of the term is. You might want to persist in your
contrary stance, and if so, I wash my hands of it -- there are better
ways to spend our time. But could you please take the trolling about
Libre off line now?

manoj

[Rony]

Post by Dhawal Doshy

Post by Pradeepto Bhattacharya
Hi

Post by Mrugesh Karnik

Post by Dhawal Doshy
True.. but libre == fookat..

Uhhh, no Philip is correct.
libre = free as in freedom, not free as in cost
Said to me by a friend of mine who knows French and hasn't heard of Linux.

Right! Its derived from ...
French liberté = Latin libertas == freedom
"logiciels libres" = free software ( French )

Wrong!! libre == free.. also liberté != libre though they have common
roots in Latin.

Could you form a sentence that uses the word libre for free and states
"This book is available free of cost" in French?

Regards,

Rony.


___________________________________________________________
The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

[Dhawal Doshy]

Post by Mrugesh Karnik

Post by Dhawal Doshy

Post by Philip Tellis

Post by Dhawal Doshy
libre == free in french OR was it italian OR spanish?? f*** it!! libre
is just 'free' in a different language.. you could call it 'fookat'
software if you choose to.. btw whats the correct word for 'fookat' in
pure hindi??

libre != fookat.

nopes libre == fookat

Post by Philip Tellis
libre = free in the liberty sense (french derived from latin)

This is your interpretation.

Post by Philip Tellis
fookat = free in the monetary sense (muft in pure hindi)

btw, muft is urdu.

Post by Philip Tellis
What you really want is "mukt" or "azad"

True.. but libre == fookat..

Uhhh, no Philip is correct.
libre = free as in freedom, not free as in cost
Said to me by a friend of mine who knows French and hasn't heard of Linux.

Nopes.. google for 'french to english dictionary'..
http://www.wordreference.com/fren/libre

Also try http://babelfish.altavista.com/

Also try google language tools..
http://www.google.co.in/language_tools?hl=en

[Philip Tellis]

Post by Dhawal Doshy

Post by Mrugesh Karnik
Said to me by a friend of mine who knows French and hasn't heard of Linux.

Nopes.. google for 'french to english dictionary'..
http://www.wordreference.com/fren/libre

Try me. I speak french.

libre means free in the liberty/liberated sense (free from worry, free
from attachment, free from bondage, etc.)

[Dhawal Doshy]

Post by Philip Tellis

Post by Dhawal Doshy

Post by Mrugesh Karnik
Said to me by a friend of mine who knows French and hasn't heard of Linux.

Nopes.. google for 'french to english dictionary'..
http://www.wordreference.com/fren/libre

Try me. I speak french.
libre means free in the liberty/liberated sense (free from worry, free
from attachment, free from bondage, etc.)

No way i continue to be right!!! i have my hands on my ears / eyes and
am shouting to myself "na nana na nah".. "na nana na nah".. "na nana na
nah" (also means I own the 'bat' and the game is over if i am ruled out)..

anyways 38/100 (hsc) is not considered good enough in French. sheesh..

[Philip Tellis]

Post by Dhawal Doshy
anyways 38/100 (hsc) is not considered good enough in French. sheesh..

who got 38/100 in HSC French? I didn't do French at HSC.

[Dhawal Doshy]

Post by Philip Tellis

Post by Dhawal Doshy
anyways 38/100 (hsc) is not considered good enough in French. sheesh..

who got 38/100 in HSC French? I didn't do French at HSC.

me who else..

[mehul]

Post by Dhawal Doshy
Nopes.. google for 'french to english dictionary'..
http://www.wordreference.com/fren/libre

I see freedom there. Open is also there. But free of cost if suspiciously
missing in the list.
BTW, what happened to original topic?

[Vihan Pandey]

Post by mehul
BTW, what happened to original topic?

Are you new here? Very few rare mail's retain their content based on the
original topic, there are those which are off topic and there are those
which have no business being mails in the first place, but have been spawned
so by their authors for various reasons often best known to themselves. A
good example would be a certain mail inquiring about shaving cream brands
:-)

Regards,

- vihan

[Manoj Srivastava]

Post by Dhawal Doshy

Post by Philip Tellis

Post by Dhawal Doshy
libre == free in french OR was it italian OR spanish?? f*** it!!
libre is just 'free' in a different language.. you could call it
fookat' software if you choose to.. btw whats the correct word for
fookat' in pure hindi??

libre != fookat.

nopes libre == fookat

Hell no. Libre has to do with liberty, not no cost.

Post by Dhawal Doshy

Post by Philip Tellis
libre = free in the liberty sense (french derived from latin)

This is your interpretation.

It is the interpretation of most people, including the
Spaniards on the #debian-devel channel that I asked.

Post by Dhawal Doshy

Post by Philip Tellis
fookat = free in the monetary sense (muft in pure hindi)

btw, muft is urdu.

Post by Philip Tellis
What you really want is "mukt" or "azad"

True.. but libre == fookat..

Wrong again.

manoj

[Rony]

Post by Baishampayan Ghose
If I can't sell a modified version of Scilab (keeping the current
license intact), how is it Open Source / Free Software? FOSS is not
against business. It never was.
Open Source is what the Open Source definition says. You can't just
interpret it in your own way and claim whatever license you like as an
Open Source license.

Open source in a broad term implies that you can look at the software
under its hood. If the source is available, but not modifiable or
re-distributable, it is still has an open source.

Post by Baishampayan Ghose

The license is *not* recognised as OSS by OSI, nor is it recognised by
FSF as FOSS. However there is no law in existence which recognises OSI
or FSF as the sole arbitrators as to what is OSS and what is not.
*I* consider it OSS - and I have the freedom to do so.

I can see that you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. Let me
repeat -- the sheer availability of the source doesn't make a software
FOSS.

He did not say FOSS.

Regards,

Rony.



___________________________________________________________
Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use" � The Wall Street Journal
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

[jtd]

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves

Post by Baishampayan Ghose

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves
it is open source. however the license is not recognised by OSI
- and scilab makes this very clear on its own web site

Heh, now you have come up with your own definition of what is
``Open Source'' too? If the license doesn't satisfy the ``Open
Source Definition'', it can not be ``Open Source''. Ditto with
the ``Free Software Definition''. Merely disclosing the source
(with a lot of restrictions) doesn't make something FOSS. There
are a lot of additional

you are getting confused between ideology and practice. Whether you
like it or not, it *is* open source. The source is available and
you can modify and use it how you like and distribute the
modifications subject to certain limitations.
*I* consider it OSS - and I have the freedom to do so.

Amen. Even if the reasoning does not stand?

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves

Post by Baishampayan Ghose
Freedoms which ought to be provided with that too. If what you
say is true, even M$ Windows is ``Open Source'' since M$ does
``share'' the source with _some_ people under _some_ conditions.

not so. If you cannot see the difference between what M$ does and
what scilab is doing, I feel very sorry for you

The licence is strange to say the least. You can use and distribute
commercially, subject to the advertising clause, the original
software. But you cannot distribute commercially if you derive or
composite it with anything else. However uou can distribute if u do
not charge.
The worst problem with closed software is preventing the spread and
growth of knowledge. This licence does prevent, even if the
restriction is against a very tiny minority.
Shades of amateur versus professional sportsman. Wasn't it another
frenchman who condemned several generations of sports persons to
abject poverty?
Any way the author of the licence must be laughing over his wine
looking at people trying to make sense of this one.

[Manoj Srivastava]

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves

Post by Baishampayan Ghose

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves
it is open source. however the license is not recognised by OSI -
and scilab makes this very clear on its own web site

Heh, now you have come up with your own definition of what is
``Open Source'' too? If the license doesn't satisfy the ``Open
Source Definition'', it can not be ``Open Source''. Ditto with the
``Free Software Definition''. Merely disclosing the source (with a
lot of restrictions) doesn't make something FOSS. There are a lot
of additional

you are getting confused between ideology and practice. Whether you
like it or not, it *is* open source. The source is available and you
can modify and use it how you like and distribute the modifications
subject to certain limitations.

The source might be visible, but by no means is it open.
Openness requires the ability to modify and distribute the results --
which is not present.

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves
The license is *not* recognised as OSS by OSI, nor is it recognised
by FSF as FOSS. However there is no law in existence which
recognises OSI or FSF as the sole arbitrators as to what is OSS and
what is not.
*I* consider it OSS - and I have the freedom to do so.

You can call it Steak, too -- but redefining commonly accepted
terms to something only you know the definition of does not help in
communication.

manoj

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

Post by Manoj Srivastava

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves
*I* consider it OSS - and I have the freedom to do so.

You can call it Steak, too -- but redefining commonly accepted
terms to something only you know the definition of does not help in
communication.

that is true - maybe i put it badly, but I feel that OSS should
include software that can be used, modified and distributed, but the
modified form may not be distributed commercialy. For an analogy,
look at this one:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/

[Manoj Srivastava]

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves

Post by Manoj Srivastava

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves
*I* consider it OSS - and I have the freedom to do so.

You can call it Steak, too -- but redefining commonly accepted
terms to something only you know the definition of does not help in
communication.

that is true - maybe i put it badly, but I feel that OSS should
include software that can be used, modified and distributed, but the
modified form may not be distributed commercialy.

You may feel like you want it to be Steak too -- but OSS has a
well defined meaning in the community, and espescially on a linux
related list, open means something more than just visibility into the
sources. Openness, in this context, does require the software to be
open to be commercially redistributed, as long as the sources are
continued to be distributed with no additional restrictions (ie, made
less open).

manoj

[Philip Tellis]

Post by Manoj Srivastava
You may feel like you want it to be Steak too -- but OSS has a
well defined meaning in the community, and espescially on a linux

It's a de facto meaning, not a de jeure meaning. All de facto meanings
are open to interpretation.

[nipra]

Hi,

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves

Post by Manoj Srivastava

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves
*I* consider it OSS - and I have the freedom to do so.

You can call it Steak, too -- but redefining commonly accepted
terms to something only you know the definition of does not help in
communication.

that is true - maybe i put it badly, but I feel that OSS should
include software that can be used, modified and distributed, but the
modified form may not be distributed commercialy. For an analogy,
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/

Analogy is not convinicing enough. Creative Commons licenses were not
created keeping only software freedom in mind. It had wider scope of
including audios, videos, photos, etc too. Having said that I would
like to point out that the above referenced license is neither Free
Software license nor Open Source license. To understand why Lawrence
Lessig chose to include such a license, please spare some bandwidth &
time to download and listen to this presentation given by him at 23rd
Chaos Communication Congress.

http://dewy.fem.tu-ilmenau.de/CCC/23C3/video/23C3-1760-en-on_free.m4v

Regards
Nikhil Prabhakar

[Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray]

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves

Post by Baishampayan Ghose
Scilab is neither a Free Software nor an Open Source Software,
since it
doesn't allow commercial distribution of a modified version

it is open source. however the license is not recognised by OSI - and
scilab makes this very clear on its own web site

Even more reason to stay away from the thing called "open source".

Regards,
Debarshi

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

Post by Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves

Post by Baishampayan Ghose
since it
doesn't allow commercial distribution of a modified version

it is open source. however the license is not recognised by OSI - and
scilab makes this very clear on its own web site

Even more reason to stay away from the thing called "open source".

last I heard you were programming zope - why dont you stick to GPL'd
software? It is precisely the OSI (Open Source without the 'F') that
has brought a huge amount of software to be available to the public,
which would have never happened if the FOSS movement had been left in
the hands of narrow-minded fanatics. The OSS movement started here:

http://linuxgazette.net/issue28/rossum.html

with attendance from people like Linus Torvalds (Linux kernel), Steve
Allman (Sendmail), Guido von Rossum (Python), Eric Raymond
(Fetchmail), Tim O'reilly and many others. These people breathed life
into the FOSS movement which was being stifled by the dogmatic
rantings of Stallman et al. And it is the 'thing called open source'
which is in most demand today - evinced by the fact that even the FSF
in India is rumoured to be switching to python, postgresql, django,
apache for it's websites. Why dont they stick the GPL'd stuff?
Because it is totally impractical and they know it. But it doesnt
prevent them from making 'holier than thou' statements and sneering
at things they are incapable of understanding.

Yes, GPL has it's place - especialy in the world of libraries and
embedded software and I am again and again thrilled to see the words
'GPL' on dlink documentation. Long live Harald Welte. But it is not
the be-all and end-all of things.

So I suggest you guys stop persecuting scilab and concentrate on
stating some policy on what you call 'web services' - all the
proprietary software from google, yahoo et al which you are happily
using because there is no fatwa from FSF in this regard.

[Vihan Pandey]

Steve Allman (Sendmail)

Err... its Eric Allman everyone.

Regards,

- vihan

[Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray]

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves
but the source is available - so far better than matlab. God save us
from purists

Use GNU Octave (http://www.gnu.org/software/octave/). Stay away from
both Matlab and Scilab.

Regards,
Debarshi

[Pradeepto Bhattacharya]

Hi,

Post by Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves
but the source is available - so far better than matlab. God save us
from purists

Use GNU Octave (http://www.gnu.org/software/octave/). Stay away from
both Matlab and Scilab.

I don't want to get into this battle but still I always fail
to understand is such blanket statements which makes no sense to me.
Do you watch TV? Do you use a cell phone? Do you listen to music on a
music system? Do you ever use a ticket vending machine ( if you get a
chance to do so, like when you are in BOM )? Do you ever use a car?
Do you ever do anything that involves some internal electronics /
programming magic so that your work is done?

So before using that do you search for a "free alternative"
for such a program/application that can run the gadget and such? Or
just go ahead and use it.

I repeat my point here, I don't want to get involved in any
of the Holy Wars (tm) . My point here is to explain you, don't just go
ahead and give a blanket statements. To me they look like prejudiced
and prejudice is bad - no matter who does it - even me surely at
times.

Since I am in a argumentive mood, lets say a company
requires huge lot numerical calculations for their project? Loads of
them. And this project will make or break them. They find that MatLab
does everything for them. SciLab comes close but many crucial features
are missing in GNU Octave. What would they do?
Not use the first two since you advised against it. (Lets assume that
they hired you as consultant by paying loads of $$$.) So you take
their money as fees and tell them not possible because they can't use
Mat/SciLab and Octave doesn't worky. One solution is they add all the
features to Octave and then use it. Now that's an ok advise but in
real world there are deadlines which they will (surely) miss because
they started buidling bricks inhouse instead of making the house.

So my question to you is - in future if you were to be a
consultant will you give such blanket statements as advice to your
clients.

Again, this is not to provoke you or anybody else.

Cheers!

Pradeepto

[Nagarjuna G.]

Post by Pradeepto Bhattacharya
Hi,

Post by Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves
but the source is available - so far better than matlab. God save us
from purists

Use GNU Octave (http://www.gnu.org/software/octave/). Stay away from
both Matlab and Scilab.

I don't want to get into this battle but still I always fail
to understand is such blanket statements which makes no sense to me.
Do you watch TV? Do you use a cell phone? Do you listen to music on a
music system? Do you ever use a ticket vending machine ( if you get a
chance to do so, like when you are in BOM )? Do you ever use a car?
Do you ever do anything that involves some internal electronics /
programming magic so that your work is done?
So before using that do you search for a "free alternative"
for such a program/application that can run the gadget and such? Or
just go ahead and use it.

There was a time when all the GNU hackers were using proprietary
kernels, operating systems, and their applications were running on top
of them. Today they managed to change the situation, they also showed
that a completely free society is not impractical. We all know that
that goal is very very ideal, and we may never reach there. However,
if we begin to compromise, and begin to adjust, we give way to what we
don't want. This act is not interesting to hackers. That is why,
whenever such an issue arises, we relentlessly repeat and remind
ourselves the objective.

As regards, scilab/octave/matlab situation goes: imagine if scilab
like Sun's java becomes a free software, it will be embraced by all of
us. We are not feeling that we miss scilab, the scilab developers
should feel that they are missing us. Their business and reach will
increase if scilab becomes free software. This will also reduce the
need to redo the things that scilab already did. By releasing it as
free software, they will gain. ultimately it is win win situation for
both, though not for matlab.

However, we should say the same thing to matlab develoopers. We
should say, please make matlab free software, so that we will begin
using it, we will begin to aclaim it, we will take to every school and
college.

By the same logic, our demand applies to the cars, vending machines
and the entire list that you stated above. We have a equivocal demand,
it does not exclude MS.

Nagarjuna

[Mrugesh Karnik]

Post by Nagarjuna G.
There was a time when all the GNU hackers were using proprietary
kernels, operating systems, and their applications were running on top
of them. Today they managed to change the situation, they also showed
that a completely free society is not impractical. We all know that
that goal is very very ideal, and we may never reach there. However,
if we begin to compromise, and begin to adjust, we give way to what we
don't want. This act is not interesting to hackers. That is why,
whenever such an issue arises, we relentlessly repeat and remind
ourselves the objective.

A question. This is not intended to be a flame or something.

What exactly does a ``free society'' mean in FSF's point of view?

[Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray]

Post by Pradeepto Bhattacharya
So my question to you is - in future if you were to be a
consultant will you give such blanket statements as advice to your
clients.

I am not a consultant, and frankly I do not care. I write programs. Or
atleast try to. I would rather make something better (eg., Octave) than
waste my time arguing with you.

Happy hacking,
Debarshi

[Pradeepto Bhattacharya]

Hi,

Post by Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray

Post by Pradeepto Bhattacharya
So my question to you is - in future if you were to be a
consultant will you give such blanket statements as advice to your
clients.

I am not a consultant, and frankly I do not care. I write programs. Or
atleast try to. I would rather make something better (eg., Octave) than
waste my time arguing with you.

I so want to say - look who's talking?

Well, consultant doesn't mean they wear suits and never
write code. I have met quite a few consultants who write probably the
best C++ code ever. And they just don't do non-foss stuff. They have
written (and still write daily) many many more thousands LOC for which
under GPL than your arguments on the list. And don't say that you
don't want to argue with me. I am probably one of the last guys to
argue. My point was you issued an blanket statement which imho is
wrong. I am *not* against GNU or FSF or OSS. I am not against Octave
either. I made that clear to Baishampayan on irc and he agreed to what
I was trying to convey. My point is if the need is now, will I ignore
a technology if the foss equivalent of the same technology is not
there or doesn't cater to all my needs at this point of time.

NO! What I would rather do as a "consultant" ( if I ever
were to become one that is ) advise using the technology suitable for
the project. Advise my client to fund the foss equivalent to an extent
that it get those features and I make myself and my client credible in
the eyes of the devs of that foss software and community at large. I
consider that as my investment. So that later I don't have to use the
non-foss technology. Think what I am trying to tell you.

Don't just run away saying that you better code rather
than argue with me or somebody else. I don't think we have joined this
list to argue though that's what we mostly do. And you chose to reply
to my email. Didn't you? You chose to reply to earlier email(s) as
well, didn't you? Why did you do that? Wasn't that a waste of time? If
you search the list archives you have argued much much more than me
for sure. I can bet on it. Or did you learn about time management
today?

Cheers!

Pradeepto

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

Post by Pradeepto Bhattacharya
Don't just run away saying that you better code rather
than argue with me or somebody else

this is a typical trend - make a statement, get refuted, run off
saying 'I have code to write, or better things to do', this is the
second guy who has opted out in this manner.

[Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray]

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves
last I heard you were programming zope

Well that is not the only thing I program, if that makes any
difference.

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves
- why dont you stick to GPL'd software

Why should I do so? As far as I am concerned, Zope and Python are both
released under free software licenses. The GPL is not the only free
software license around. Here is something for you:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves
has brought a huge amount of software to be available to the public,
which would have never happened if the FOSS movement had been left in

Is it? I do not think so; and I do not trust you. Recently I heard some
people give talks.

a. Dr. D.B. Phatak. Loves BSD; hates GPL.
b. Someone from KreSit (forgot his name), who is close to 'a'.
c. Chap from OSSRC, CDAC, Mumbai.
d. Mathias Klang. Creative Commons Sweden, Lead

Person 'a' started off by expressing his hatred about GPL and expressed
his love for BSD. He gave a nice presentation too. The presentation was
in Windows.

Person 'b' spoke about the efforts of KreSit to promote Open Source, and
he used MacOS, even after I personnally offered him a free alternative.

Person 'c' spoke about how CDAC is championing Open Source and writing a
text to speech front-end for Pine. Why not Mutt? Pine is non-free, but I
am not sure about the Open Sourceness of the thing. Hence I can not say
anything. Even then. Why not Mutt? GNU did not write Mutt.

Person 'd' again went for his MacOS. Reason being OpenOffice.org could
not render his presentation made in Powerpoint. The problem with
Creative Commons is that its chief says Free Software and GPL has does
not have the concept of copyright. That is nonsense. Isn't it?

Hence I can no more trust someone who champions Open Source and pretends
to work for software freedom.

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves
with attendance from people like Linus Torvalds (Linux kernel), Steve
Allman (Sendmail), Guido von Rossum (Python), Eric Raymond
(Fetchmail)

So what? FSF/GNU does recognise Linus Torvalds for the Linux kernel. The
only problem is that he is not much bothered about sofware freedom. Did
you hear the BitKeeper story?

Eric Raymond has his name in GNU's Who
(http://www.gnu.org/people/people.html). He has had his share of
appreciation too.

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves
Why dont they stick the GPL'd stuff?

Why should they? The programs you mentioned are all Free Software.

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves
So I suggest you guys stop persecuting scilab and concentrate on
stating some policy on what you call 'web services' - all the
proprietary software from google, yahoo et al which you are happily
using because there is no fatwa from FSF in this regard.

Are you helping the drafting of GPLv3? Or are you just sitting and
lecturing? Back when the GPL was written, Open Source did not even
exist.

Why only 'web services'? What about Tivoisation? Are the Open Source
champions doing something about it? Bruce Perens publicly urged the
Linux kernel hackers to embrace GPLv3, and supported Stallman's view
on this on lwn.net. Bruce Perens is the chap who wrote the Open Source
Definition. In that same article he also stresses the need to start
talking about software freedom once again. Where is Mr. Torvalds?

Regards,
Debarshi

[Pradeepto Bhattacharya]

Hi

On 2/18/07, Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray <***@gmail.com> wrote:
Huh???? Now, what happened? You are done with your coding?
And you are back to arguing? Didn't you just say a while back that you
better be coding instead of coding. I did some math ( I suck at it
anyways, but still ). This reply of yours to Kenneth's post was ~2.4Kb
in size .

You could have coded instead. No?

Pradeepto

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

Post by Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves
- why dont you stick to GPL'd software

Why should I do so? As far as I am concerned, Zope and Python are both
released under free software licenses. The GPL is not the only free
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html

ever heard of the tail attempting to wag the dog? This is an apt
description of the FS movement. The OSS movement started as a
reaction to the extremism of the FS movement and conciously decided
to remove the 'F' in an attempt to reach a wider audience - and they
succeeded. So the FS movement, unable to prevent this, attempts to
hitch themselves to it by rechristening it as Free Software. Zope and
Python and Postgres and Apache and thousands of others do *not*
consider themselves Free Software. They consider themselves OSS.
Similarly, the only Linux that considers itself GNU/Linux is Debian.
All the other distros consider themselves Linux. Time you guys got
real and respected the opinions of others.

Post by Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves
has brought a huge amount of software to be available to the public,
which would have never happened if the FOSS movement had been left in

Is it? I do not think so; and I do not trust you. Recently I heard some
people give talks.
a. Dr. D.B. Phatak. Loves BSD; hates GPL.
b. Someone from KreSit (forgot his name), who is close to 'a'.
c. Chap from OSSRC, CDAC, Mumbai.
d. Mathias Klang. Creative Commons Sweden, Lead
Person 'a' started off by expressing his hatred about GPL and
expressed
his love for BSD. He gave a nice presentation too. The presentation was
in Windows.
Person 'b' spoke about the efforts of KreSit to promote Open
Source, and
he used MacOS, even after I personnally offered him a free
alternative.
Person 'c' spoke about how CDAC is championing Open Source and
writing a
text to speech front-end for Pine. Why not Mutt? Pine is non-free, but I
am not sure about the Open Sourceness of the thing. Hence I can not say
anything. Even then. Why not Mutt? GNU did not write Mutt.
Person 'd' again went for his MacOS. Reason being OpenOffice.org could
not render his presentation made in Powerpoint. The problem with
Creative Commons is that its chief says Free Software and GPL has does
not have the concept of copyright. That is nonsense. Isn't it?
Hence I can no more trust someone who champions Open Source and pretends
to work for software freedom.

LOL - you invited them - you took their money and support for the
meeting. Dont tell me you didnt know their stand and philosophy
before you did? And none or the gentlemen named above either has a
clue as to what is open source software nor do they champion it. Get
your facts right.

Post by Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves
with attendance from people like Linus Torvalds (Linux kernel), Steve
Allman (Sendmail), Guido von Rossum (Python), Eric Raymond
(Fetchmail)

So what? FSF/GNU does recognise Linus Torvalds for the Linux
kernel. The
only problem is that he is not much bothered about sofware freedom. Did
you hear the BitKeeper story?

I am sure Linus is thrilled at being recognised. I suggest, in view
of the BitKeeper story, that you derecognise him

Post by Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray
Eric Raymond has his name in GNU's Who
(http://www.gnu.org/people/people.html). He has had his share of
appreciation too.

I am sure he is also ecstatic

Post by Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves
Why dont they stick the GPL'd stuff?

Why should they? The programs you mentioned are all Free Software.

they arent - they are OSS. Just calling them Free Software does not
make them so.

Post by Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves
So I suggest you guys stop persecuting scilab and concentrate on
stating some policy on what you call 'web services' - all the
proprietary software from google, yahoo et al which you are happily
using because there is no fatwa from FSF in this regard.

Are you helping the drafting of GPLv3?

no. I have no interest in GPLv3 - I am strongly against the idea of
having one comprehensive monolithical license that attempts to cover
everything known and guard against everything that may arise. It is
not possible, and is against the Open Source model of development. It
is overengineering and, as Linus (remember he is *recognised*)
overengineering is the main reason for the failure of Hurd. I believe
in developing many licenses for particular situations in particular
jurisdictions.

Post by Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray
Or are you just sitting and
lecturing? Back when the GPL was written, Open Source did not even
exist.

Open Source came into existence as a reaction to the extremism of the
FS movement

Post by Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray
Why only 'web services'? What about Tivoisation? Are the Open Source
champions doing something about it? Bruce Perens publicly urged the
Linux kernel hackers to embrace GPLv3, and supported Stallman's view
on this on lwn.net. Bruce Perens is the chap who wrote the Open Source
Definition. In that same article he also stresses the need to start
talking about software freedom once again. Where is Mr. Torvalds?

who needs him? you are there

[Manoj Srivastava]

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves

Post by Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves
- why dont you stick to GPL'd software

Why should I do so? As far as I am concerned, Zope and Python are
both released under free software licenses. The GPL is not the only
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html

ever heard of the tail attempting to wag the dog? This is an apt
description of the FS movement. The OSS movement started as a
reaction to the extremism of the FS movement and conciously decided
to remove the 'F' in an attempt to reach a wider audience - and they
succeeded. So the FS movement, unable to prevent this, attempts to
hitch themselves to it by rechristening it as Free Software. Zope
and Python and Postgres and Apache and thousands of others do *not*
consider themselves Free Software. They consider themselves OSS.
Similarly, the only Linux that considers itself GNU/Linux is Debian.
All the other distros consider themselves Linux. Time you guys got
real and respected the opinions of others.

You are revising history here a bit. The OSS folks did not
want to change the basic philosophy as much as market it to the suits
better. Indeed, the open source definition started off as a close of
the DFSG -- but the word "Free" was removed to make it more palatable
to the business people.

They were careful to not actually change the requisite
freedoms. And, really, I think most people do not consider hte
software covered by the terms as distinct -- same software,
different terms used by people to describe it, albeit with slightly
different philosophical goals.

manoj
who was there when the open source stuff was launched

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

Post by Manoj Srivastava

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves
All the other distros consider themselves Linux. Time you guys got
real and respected the opinions of others.

You are revising history here a bit. The OSS folks did not
want to change the basic philosophy as much as market it to the suits
better. Indeed, the open source definition started off as a close of
the DFSG -- but the word "Free" was removed to make it more palatable
to the business people.
They were careful to not actually change the requisite
freedoms. And, really, I think most people do not consider hte
software covered by the terms as distinct -- same software,
different terms used by people to describe it, albeit with slightly
different philosophical goals.

i would say the major difference is the absence of copyleft in OSS

[nipra]

Hi,

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves

Post by Manoj Srivastava

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves
All the other distros consider themselves Linux. Time you guys got
real and respected the opinions of others.

You are revising history here a bit. The OSS folks did not
want to change the basic philosophy as much as market it to the suits
better. Indeed, the open source definition started off as a close of
the DFSG -- but the word "Free" was removed to make it more palatable
to the business people.
They were careful to not actually change the requisite
freedoms. And, really, I think most people do not consider hte
software covered by the terms as distinct -- same software,
different terms used by people to describe it, albeit with slightly
different philosophical goals.

i would say the major difference is the absence of copyleft in OSS

What OSS definition you are talking about? Yours? Or as defined by
Open Source Initiative ? Or is it politically neutral enough to
include the term Free as in Freedom?

Did you read what copyleft meant? Please stop spreading FUD and do
some research before issuing such vague and confusing statements.

Copy- pasting from:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html

``Copyleft is a general method for making a program or other work
free, and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program
to be free as well.''

Now I don't understand what it means to make a false claim that
``major difference is the absence of copyleft in OSS''. There might be
some Open Source licenses that are not Free Software license or vice
versa because the organisation behind them work independent of each
other, have different goals and philosophies. Considering your
statement, can I say that GNU GPL certified by Open Source Initiative
as Open Source license or to be concise an OSS license is not
copylefted. (Which is certainly false.) Please stop spreading FUD or
do proper research before making such claims or go on redefining
everything you seem to care about and advocate it with logic and
philosophies pioneers of Free Software Movement have done with so much
pain for last 24 years. For now I would like to ignore your all
subsequent replies.

Regards
Nikhil Prabhakar

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

Post by nipra
pain for last 24 years. For now I would like to ignore your all
subsequent replies.

i thought of making an elaborate reply to what you said, but since
anyway you are going to ignore my replies, I would like you to
utilise the free time you get by doing this to investigating the
statement, made, I think, by Stallman, that the GPL is subversive of
copyright. I interpret this to be the crux of the concept of
copyleft. Of course I am an idiot, have never read anything and am
solely interested in spreading FUD, so dont take this too seriously.

[nipra]

Hi,

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves

Post by nipra
pain for last 24 years. For now I would like to ignore your all
subsequent replies.

i thought of making an elaborate reply to what you said, but since
anyway you are going to ignore my replies, I would like you to
utilise the free time you get by doing this to investigating the
statement, made, I think, by Stallman, that the GPL is subversive of
copyright. I interpret this to be the crux of the concept of
copyleft. Of course I am an idiot, have never read anything and am
solely interested in spreading FUD, so dont take this too seriously.

Sincere apologies for making offending and personal comments in my
posts. Please post your reply. To clear the confusion, I would like to
make it clear that Open Source software for me is a software released
under a license approved by Open Source Initiative. I don't have any
personal interpretation of Open Source software.

Regards
Nikhil Prabhakar

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

Post by nipra

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves
copyleft. Of course I am an idiot, have never read anything and am
solely interested in spreading FUD, so dont take this too seriously.

Sincere apologies for making offending and personal comments in my
posts. Please post your reply. To clear the confusion, I would like to
make it clear that Open Source software for me is a software released
under a license approved by Open Source Initiative. I don't have any
personal interpretation of Open Source software.

i agree with you there - however I feel that this could be further
diluted to cover the case of scilab. I feel this is far less
hypocritical than the 'dual-license' model which for some strange
reason is tolerated by the promoters of GPL. Classic case is mysql.

As for copyleft, I have always understood that the key element of the
concept of copyleft is the 'contribute back' condition, whereby the
ownership of the copyright gets spread. For example, in the case of
the linux kernel, the copyright ownership is so widely spread that it
has been practically subverted - which is the ultimate goal of
copyleft. BSD style licenses do not have this condition - the whole
copyright always vests with the original owner.

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 06:38:46 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves

Post by nipra
Sincere apologies for making offending and personal comments in my
posts. Please post your reply. To clear the confusion, I would like
to make it clear that Open Source software for me is a software
released under a license approved by Open Source Initiative. I
don't have any personal interpretation of Open Source software.

i agree with you there - however I feel that this could be further
diluted to cover the case of scilab.

What is it that you feel can be diluted? If you are referring
to the definition of OSS, then diluting that definition is not your
call. And until the people who _can_ actually change the definition
do so, scilab is not open source software -- and not free software
either.

manoj

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

Post by Manoj Srivastava

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves
i agree with you there - however I feel that this could be further
diluted to cover the case of scilab.

What is it that you feel can be diluted? If you are referring
to the definition of OSS, then diluting that definition is not your
call.

i can ask - and am asking

[Manoj Srivastava]

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves
i agree with you there - however I feel that this could be further
diluted to cover the case of scilab.

What is it that you feel can be diluted? If you are referring to
the definition of OSS, then diluting that definition is not your
call.

i can ask - and am asking

You don't get a change in the definition for a specific
software or license -- or, to put it another way, this has not been
done, ever. What the OSI does is try and determine if a license
meets the requirements of the unchanged definition, or not.

In this case, it is pretty clear that the license does not
meet the definition -- and that is pretty much that.

manoj

[Rony]

Post by nipra
Hi,

Post by Kenneth Gonsalves
i would say the major difference is the absence of copyleft in OSS

What OSS definition you are talking about? Yours? Or as defined by
Open Source Initiative ? Or is it politically neutral enough to
include the term Free as in Freedom?

You are again mixing the term OSS with FOSS. OSS is not always Free OSS.

Post by nipra
Did you read what copyleft meant? Please stop spreading FUD and do
some research before issuing such vague and confusing statements.
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html
``Copyleft is a general method for making a program or other work
free, and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program
to be free as well.''
Now I don't understand what it means to make a false claim that
``major difference is the absence of copyleft in OSS''. [SNIP] For now I would like to ignore your all
subsequent replies.

Again a mix-up of OSS and FOSS. 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.

At the SELF conference in TIFR, a very good point was raised by the
guest speakers that hoarding of knowledge is against the development of
society and up-liftment of the weaker sections of society. That is why
knowledge should be free. When I see the political situation in India
and abroad and the way we disagree on this list, I feel that we still
haven't understood the true meaning of freedom. Just as knowledge should
not be hoarded, Freedom should not/never be hoarded. Freedom has to be
shared, to be passed on to others. Give others the same freedom that we
expect from them.

And let us throw flames at each other in the same spirit as we throw
colours during Holi.

Regards,

Rony.


___________________________________________________________
Inbox full of spam? Get leading spam protection and 1GB storage with All New Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 20:19:32 +0530, Rony

Post by Rony
You are again mixing the term OSS with FOSS. OSS is not always Free OSS.

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.

Post by Rony
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

Post by Rony
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 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)

manoj

[Rony]

Post by Manoj Srivastava
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."

Post by Manoj Srivastava

Post by Rony
Again a mix-up of OSS and FOSS.

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

Post by Rony
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.

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
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

What made you think so?

Post by Manoj Srivastava
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)

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 01:55:51 +0530, Rony

Post by Manoj Srivastava
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).

Post by Manoj Srivastava
Even the FSF acknowledges that open source and free software are
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html>

What made you think so?

[Rony]

Post by Manoj Srivastava
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 01:55:51 +0530, Rony

Post by Manoj Srivastava
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).

Post by Manoj Srivastava
Even the FSF acknowledges that open source and free software are
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html>

What made you think so?

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 20:23:30 +0530, Rony

Could you please clarify what you are agreeing to and what are you
opposing? In your earlier mail you try to make FOSS and OSS appear
the same. The OSS and GNU links that you provided actually show that
the two differ in allowing copyleft freedom. Now in the above mail
you agree that they are different but FOSS - F = OSS. Well we all
agree to that and thats what I said.

Thats incorrect, actually. FOSS is term that contains OSS, so
it is a superset of OSS. Think of it as a union of two overlapping
sets.

When the OP has already acknowledged that the OSS license under
which Scilab is released is not the accepted OSS license and you too
agree that FOSS != OSS then what are you arguing about?

FOSS == Free or Open Source Software
== Free Software U Open Source Software.

scilab is not OSS, scilab is not FS, and thus scilab is also
not FOSS.

Frankly, I think most people will be hard put to come up with
concrete examples of software that is OSS but not FS or that is FS
but not OSS.

Any takers?

manoj

[Philip Tellis]

Post by Manoj Srivastava
concrete examples of software that is OSS but not FS or that is FS

pine.

[Manoj Srivastava]

Post by Manoj Srivastava
concrete examples of software that is OSS but not FS or that is FS

pine.

Are you sure pine is OSS?
http://www.washington.edu/pine/overview/legal.html says:
,----
| Redistribution of this release is permitted as follows, or by mutual
| agreement:
| (a) In free-of-charge or at-cost distributions by non-profit concerns;
| (b) In free-of-charge distributions by for-profit concerns;
| (c) Inclusion in a CD-ROM collection of free-of-charge, shareware, or
| non-proprietary software for which a fee may be charged for the
| packaged distribution.
`----

So, no can charge big bucks for pine.
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php:
,----
| 1. Free Redistribution
| The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away
| the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution
| containing programs from several different sources.
| 2. Source Code
| The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
| source code as well as compiled form.
| 3. Derived Works
| The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must
| allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of
| the original software.
`----

So, pine fails clause 1 of the OSS definition, and is thus not
Open source software; since it prevents selling.

manoj

[Mrugesh Karnik]

Post by Manoj Srivastava
Frankly, I think most people will be hard put to come up with
concrete examples of software that is OSS but not FS or that is FS
but not OSS.
Any takers?

Is qmail Open Source?

[Manoj Srivastava]

Post by Mrugesh Karnik

Post by Manoj Srivastava
Frankly, I think most people will be hard put to come up with
concrete examples of software that is OSS but not FS or that is FS
but not OSS.
Any takers?

Is qmail Open Source?

Heck no. No distribution of binary form kills that off the
bat.

manoj

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

Post by Manoj Srivastava
Frankly, I think most people will be hard put to come up with
concrete examples of software that is OSS but not FS or that is FS
but not OSS.
Any takers?

isnt the BSD license OSS but not FS - as there is no bar against
taking it proprietory?

[Baishampayan Ghose]

On Tuesday 20 February 2007 06:27 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves cobbled together

Post by Manoj Srivastava
Frankly, I think most people will be hard put to come up with
concrete examples of software that is OSS but not FS or that is FS
but not OSS.
Any takers?

isnt the BSD license OSS but not FS - as there is no bar against taking
it proprietory?

BSD is Free Software. Having no bar is not a restriction. It's an extra
Freedom. One can easily take BSD licensed code and make it proprietary /
GPL.
You need to understand that the Free Software definition has got nothing
to do with the GNU GPL. The BSD license provides the four necessary
freedoms and thus is Free Software, similar to Public Domain software.

Regards,
BG

- --
Baishampayan Ghose <***@ubuntu.com>
Ubuntu -- Linux for Human Beings
http://www.ubuntu.com/

1024D/86361B74
BB2C E244 15AD 05C5 523A 90E7 4249 3494 8636 1B74

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

Post by Baishampayan Ghose
freedoms and thus is Free Software, similar to Public Domain software.

Free software is similar to public domain software? Or is BSD similar
to public domains software? Are you serious?

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

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."

in short, a call to the tail to be more vigorous in attempting to wag
the dog

[Vihan Pandey]

Post by Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray
a. Dr. D.B. Phatak. Loves BSD; hates GPL.
b. Someone from KreSit (forgot his name), who is close to 'a'.
c. Chap from OSSRC, CDAC, Mumbai.
d. Mathias Klang. Creative Commons Sweden, Lead
Person 'a' started off by expressing his hatred about GPL and expressed
his love for BSD. He gave a nice presentation too. The presentation was
in Windows.

*sigh*

Person 'b' spoke about the efforts of KreSit to promote Open Source, and

Post by Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray
he used MacOS, even after I personnally offered him a free alternative.

Its VERY tough to make Mac OS X users accept anything else. Unless they have
a VERY clear reason, namely ``Freedom" they won't do so.

Person 'c' spoke about how CDAC is championing Open Source and writing a

Post by Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray
text to speech front-end for Pine. Why not Mutt? Pine is non-free, but I
am not sure about the Open Sourceness of the thing. Hence I can not say
anything. Even then. Why not Mutt? GNU did not write Mutt.

Very wierd, can this person even do this as if i'm not mistaken Pine does
not give you Freedom 3, i.e you cannot publish the modified version.

Person 'd' again went for his MacOS. Reason being OpenOffice.org could

Post by Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray
not render his presentation made in Powerpoint.

That's simple. Somebody should have told him in the mildest of terms DON'T
USE POWERPOINT SHITHEAD!!! i'm sorry about the language but it's REALLY
irritating that a speaker talking of open standards is using proprietary
tools.

The problem with

Post by Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray
Creative Commons is that its chief says Free Software and GPL has does
not have the concept of copyright. That is nonsense. Isn't it?

agreed

Hence I can no more trust someone who champions Open Source and pretends

Post by Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray
to work for software freedom.

let's not club everyone in that boat. There are those in the Open Source
community who are fighting hard against software patents and let's not
forget the SCO case either.

So what? FSF/GNU does recognise Linus Torvalds for the Linux kernel. The

Post by Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray
only problem is that he is not much bothered about sofware freedom. Did
you hear the BitKeeper story?

true.

Regards,

- vihan

[Vickram Crishna]

Post by Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray
Person 'b' spoke about the efforts of KreSit to
promote Open Source, and

Post by Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray
he used MacOS, even after I personnally offered

him a free alternative.
Its VERY tough to make Mac OS X users accept
anything else. Unless they have
a VERY clear reason, namely ``Freedom" they won't
do so.

Namely "Freedom"? Naah. How about "user experience"? I
use G/L on a PC, but Mac OSX on the laptop. I tried to
switch to Ubuntu (great design, almost as good as Aqua
features), but it won't recognise the peripherals.

Not working is not better than networking. And this is
the latest distro, right out of the box. While my box
is an old G4, with old peripherals (about 4 yrs). Give
me a break, for heaven's sake!





___________________________________________________________
New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more at the Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes.
http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://mail.yahoo.net/uk

[Vihan Pandey]

Post by Vickram Crishna
Namely "Freedom"?

Yes.

Naah.


Yeaah.

How about "user experience"? I

Post by Vickram Crishna
use G/L on a PC, but Mac OSX on the laptop. I tried to
switch to Ubuntu (great design, almost as good as Aqua
features), but it won't recognise the peripherals.

Besides the Internal Modem, which one ?

Not working is not better than networking. And this is

Post by Vickram Crishna
the latest distro, right out of the box. While my box
is an old G4, with old peripherals (about 4 yrs). Give
me a break, for heaven's sake!

For heaven's sake give ME a break! Everything except the internal modem
works just fine on the G4 running Ubuntu Dapper, in fact its all auto
detected. This has been tried and tested, and there is more than one user on
this list currently running Ubuntu on a G4 laptop.

Regards,

- vihan