Re: Woctave-another gui front end

[Stephen Montgomery-Smith]

On 12/20/2012 03:01 PM, Benjamin Abbott wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2012, at 3:56 PM, Sergei Steshenko <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
>> ________________________________
>>> From: Benjamin Abbott <address@hidden>
>>> To: Sergei Steshenko <address@hidden> 
>>> Cc: Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso <address@hidden>; "address@hidden" 
>>> <address@hidden> 
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:51 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Woctave-another gui front end
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 20, 2012, at 3:46 PM, Sergei Steshenko <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>
>>>> From: Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso <address@hidden>
>>>> To: Sergei Steshenko <address@hidden>
>>>> Cc: Stephen Montgomery-Smith <address@hidden>; "address@hidden" 
>>>> <address@hidden>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:30 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: Woctave-another gui front end
>>>>
>>>> On 20 December 2012 14:11, Sergei Steshenko <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> Regarding open source but not quite free - have a look at METIS: 
>>>> http://glaros.dtc.umn.edu/gkhome/metis/metis/faq?q=metis/metis/faq#distribute
>>>>  .
>>>>
>>>> METIS is not open source nor free. If you forbid commercial use, you
>>>> are neither.
>>>>
>>>> - Jordi G. H.
>>>>
>>>> Metis _is_ open source. I _do_ download it and build it from source. 
>>>> Download URLs:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.netlib.org/linalg/metis-4.0.tar.gz
>>>> http://glaros.dtc.umn.edu/gkhome/fetch/sw/metis/metis-5.0.2.tar.gz
>>>>
>>>> , etc.
>>>>
>>>> You do _not_ have monopoly defining what freedom is.
>>>
>>> Regarding open source, I think Jordi is correct.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
>>>
>>>
>>> Ben
>>
>> FTA: "Generically, open source refers to a program in which the source code 
>> is available to the general public for use and/or modification from its 
>> original design free of charge, i.e., open.".
>>
>> I have published URLs using which the general public can download METIS 
>> source free of charge. The URLs are _not_ of pirated SW kind.
>>
>> Regards,
>>   Sergei.
> 
> METIS is not generally available for use  for commercial purposes.  Hence, 
> not open source.
> 
> Ben


OK, I get it now.  "Free" versus "open-source" is not "BSD" versus "GPL"
as I originally thought it was (and as Sergei suggested to me it was),
but is actually a rather irrelevant in-house fight over semantics that
people get very energized about.

I'm still rather amazed that one of you compared "open-source" to a
racial epithet!

Anyway, I'll cease worrying about the distinction, and keep calling it
"open-source" just like I always have.  Please carry on your argument,
which from now on I'll stay out of.

Adios,
Stephen