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".
A definition with a nice big "This article may need to be reworded to conform to a neutral point of view" warning at the top. ;-)
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.
There seems to be such an edit on the way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Closed_source
-- 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
