Scilab is not open-source
Scilab is not open-source
Posted Nov 9, 2006 20:00 UTC (Thu) by mightyduck (guest, #23760)In reply to: Scilab is not open-source by ballombe
Parent article: Get more Science into your Distribution
So what? It's still open source, just not GPL or "free" (as in speech)
software.
Posted Nov 10, 2006 7:19 UTC (Fri)
by njs (guest, #40338)
[Link] (5 responses)
Please see the Open Source Definition, which begins "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code": http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php
In common parlance (modulo this kind of misunderstanding), "open source" and "free" refer to exactly the same sorts of licenses; the differences are at the level of motivations and philosophy. If people want to be more precise, they say things like "OSI-approved" or "DFSG-free", but this level of specification is not really necessary in situations like this.
Posted Nov 10, 2006 15:35 UTC (Fri)
by mightyduck (guest, #23760)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Nov 10, 2006 18:14 UTC (Fri)
by kmccarty (subscriber, #12085)
[Link] (1 responses)
Sorry, but I don't give a flying f*ck about this ideological crap [...] I'm not a distributor and I don't care about the other ideological bullsh*t. Wow, defensive much?! Without "this ideological crap," it's highly unlikely that Linux would ever have become competitive with high-end proprietary UNIXes, and you would have to spend $$$ to even have a platform on which to run Scilab, free (as in beer) though it might be. (I guess you could run it on Windows, for which you only have to spend $. But if you would rather use that than Linux, I assume you wouldn't be posting on LWN. Right? :-) No one is saying "Don't use Scilab"; the OP is only cautioning readers that Scilab doesn't come with some freedoms that most people using a Linux platform routinely expect of their software. For many, this is an important piece of information. Also, distributors' needs for software to be Free (libre) are not in fact irrelevant to you! If Scilab were actually Free software, distributors would be able to support its use and integrate it with other parts of their operating systems to a much greater extent. As just one example, in the present situation no one may distribute Scilab binaries that use GPL'ed readline.
Posted Nov 10, 2006 18:36 UTC (Fri)
by mightyduck (guest, #23760)
[Link]
Posted Nov 10, 2006 19:42 UTC (Fri)
by njs (guest, #40338)
[Link]
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."
If OSS to you means "a nice knock-down argument" (and from your response, perhaps it does!), then great, but, eh, don't expect to be able to actually y'know _communicate_ with other people like that.
Posted Nov 30, 2006 16:48 UTC (Thu)
by lysse (guest, #3190)
[Link]
If you don't care about the arguments, fine, but don't make the mistake of believing that your ignorance makes them irrelevant to you.
Man, and ESR is always complaining that the problem with the word "free" is that people misinterpret it...Scilab is not open-source
Sorry, but I don't give a flying f*ck about this ideological crap. To me, Scilab is not open-source
open source means, I have access to the source code and can modify it to
fit my needs or fix bugs etc., period. I'm not a distributor and I don't
care about the other ideological bullsh*t.
Scilab is not open-source
The OP claimed that it's not "open-source" for some definition of Scilab is not open-source
"open-source" and I don't agree with THAT! I know that it's not free as
in "free speech" but it's still open-source for me because I have access
to the source and can modify it. That is how I define open-source. But
that whole discussion is all about wording and leads to nowhere. For me
Scilab is "open-source", "free as in beer" but not "free as in free
speech". I (or better, my employer) doesn't care so much about the "free
as in beer" thing and would be willing to spend $$$ if necessary, but I
care a lot about access to the source because it makes finding and fixing
bugs or adapting the program to your needs a lot easier. You are no
longer at the mercy of some company and even if the vendor goes out of
business you can still sort of use the program and port it to a new OS
for instance (happened to me already). With closed-source, even if it's
"free as in beer" that wouldn't be possible. And I don't care whether I
can distribute the modified program or not as I'm not even allowed
(according to my employment contract) to distribute substantial changes I
developed to open-source programs.
If you read again, you may notice that I said nothing at all about ideology (except to note that it was irrelevant to the discussion at hand).
Scilab is not open-source
Presumably you'll never, ever share the bugs you fixed, or the program you compiled that includes your bugfixes, with your friends or work colleagues. That would make you a distributor, after all...Scilab is not open-source