Excluded and other middles in licensing

[Robert Kern]

Cameron Laird wrote:
> 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 ...

I'm with Cameron on this one.

-- 
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