Excluded and other middles in licensing

[Robert Kern]

Alex Martelli wrote:
> Robert Kern <rkern at ucsd.edu> 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
rkern at ucsd.edu

"In the fields of hell where the grass grows high
  Are the graves of dreams allowed to die."
   -- Richard Harter