On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 07:32:20 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 17-Feb-07, at 8:55 PM, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> *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
--
Where the system is concerned, you're not allowed to ask "Why?".
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
