[OSGeo-Discuss] Re: A reminder on terminology

[Frank Warmerdam]

René A. Enguehard wrote:
> If you want to be even more granular, you can say "closed source 
> software" as well. There does exist software which has a closed source 
> but is not directly proprietary. For instance, parts of the QNX kernel 
> code are not shown with the standard source code and to be able to view 
> them you must sign some form of an agreement. Even then, you cannot 
> modify the code or redistribute, but you are free to submit improvements 
> and patches which will then be reviewed and (possibly) integrated. I 
> wouldn't call that proprietary software by any stretch since you *can* 
> see the source code and patch bugs within the kernel and the rest of the 
> code base is entirely open source.
> 
> Perhaps it's a bit pedantic, but if we're going for accuracy we might 
> not want to lump everything together with proprietary software either.

René,

I would certainly call that proprietary!  To my mind, proprietary projects
and source are those that I do not have the direct freedom to view,
modify and redistribute at will (as defined in the Open Source Definition
for instance).

If I can only see the source with permission it is closed.

If I can only provide improvements to others with permission it is closed.

I think proprietary is a reasonable name for projects that fail to meet
the open source definition, though there could be some grey zones where it
seems like an inappropriate label.

Best regards,
-- 
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam at pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | Geospatial Programmer for Rent