Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > >>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. ... > > 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.
There is no "official" definition of closed-source as there is of open-source, but I'm with the Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_source "any program whose licensing terms do not qualify as open source". I'm not disputing it would be useful to draw many distinctions within the universe of programs with non-opensource licenses, just pointing out that such distinctions are not currently reflected in a popular definition. Since it's a wiki, it may be worthwhile editing it to add some materials to start influencing popular usage and perception, maybe. Alex -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
