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.


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,
light and sound - activate the windows |
and watch the world go round - Rush    | Geospatial Programmer for Rent

Discuss mailing list

Reply via email to