Excluded and other middles in licensing

Robert Kern rkern at ucsd.edu
Thu Jan 6 21:18:20 EST 2005

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.
> 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

More information about the Python-list mailing list