Gregor Richards wrote:
I realize people are going to misuse the term Open Source. However, the term is NOT generic, and DOES have a specific meaning; it is in fact trademarked, and using it to describe software that does not fit the Open Source Definition is in violation of the trademark. But more importantly than that, it's confusing to the loads of people out here who use F/OSS and depend on the freedoms it provides. Without redistribution rights, F/OSS is substantially less valuable, as it doesn't provide any escape if the original creator loses interest, spontaneously combusts, decides he hates giving away his source and closes it again, etc, etc, etc.
I've heard the term 'disclosed source' before, in the context of various Microsoft products where the source code is available but not redistributable. It's as good a choice as any.
