Excluded and other middles in licensing

[Alex Martelli]

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".

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