Cameron Laird wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alex Martelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
.
.
.
One last reflection -- I believe there are or used to be some programs
written by people no doubt of very good will, distributed with all
sources and often with no profit motive at all, which are NOT open
source because they include in the license some restrictive clause, such
as "no military use", "no use by organizations which perform testing of
cosmetics on animals", or something of that kind. These would be
examples of closed-source software which DO allow ALMOST any kind of use
-- any EXCEPT the specific one the authors dislike so intensely.
While most people may not think of such programs as "closed source",
they most definitely ARE: the definition of open source is very strict
about this aspect.
Alex
With my mathematical background, I'm consistent about calling
these "non-open" rather than "closed". I don't insist others
adopt my nomenclature ...
I'm with Cameron on this one.
--
Robert Kern
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"In the fields of hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die."
-- Richard Harter
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
