Excluded and other middles in licensing (was: The Industry choice)

[Cameron Laird]

In article <1gpz9qx.vmv8hav17z8qN%aleaxit at yahoo.com>,
Alex Martelli <aleaxit at yahoo.com> 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 ...