> "Closed source" is the standard term. Since you seen to not like that term, you could go with "proprietary".
Your definitions go contrary to the understandings and usages of every non-F/OSS person on the Internet.
For example, both "closed source" and "proprietary" are used to mean source-code-not-available in gaming circles.
Perhaps the open source movements should seek intuitive definitions of terms rather than invent vague nomenclature that only makes them unable to communicate with normal users.
The definitions of open source are actually quite technical. They are not vague like you suggest.
It's unavoidable that people will be confused about terms outside their area of expertise. Since you mentioned gamers: I shudder at the vast multitude of confusing terms the various gamer communities use, like for example in WoW.
However, I think you're overstating your case: I suspect few gamers, if any, will confuse leaked source code or code which you're not allowed to use in any way as "open source". I don't expect them to undestand every nuance, but surely even they understand source code you're not allowed to run or modify is not "open" in any meaningful interpretation of the term :)
> but surely even they understand source code you're not allowed to run or modify is not "open" in any meaningful interpretation of the term :)
"Run" or "modify" are not requisites in the common understanding of "open source"; legality of viewing is. "Open" to them usually means it can be distributed (to them) and read without breaking the law.
I'm not sure what you mean. I was replying to user twr who said:
> Perhaps the open source movements should seek intuitive definitions of terms rather than invent vague nomenclature that only makes them unable to communicate with normal users.
The "open source movements" he/she mentioned have very technical definitions of what open source means (of varying degree, of course, but have you tried reading the GPL? Do you think it's non-technical?). Of all the valid criticisms you could throw at them, "vague nomenclature" is not one. Their definitions of open source may be difficult to communicate precisely because they are very technical, not because they are "vague".
I think "who" was quite clear in this context. Do you disagree?
You are literally the first person on the internet I've ever seen to believe this. Everyone either doesn't know the concept at all, or knows it to be more or less exactly what open source people say it is. Its been well defined since my beginnings in the AOL cd era, pay per hour 28k modem days.
Its not just Foss people, its common knowledge among technical people.
From an article on gnu.org discussing related issues, here's a quote from author Neal Stephenson:
> Linux is “open source” software meaning, simply, that anyone can get copies of its source code files.
And the state of Kansas:
> Make use of open-source software (OSS). OSS is software for which the source code is freely and publicly available, though the specific licensing agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do with that code.
For me, the reason for the confusion comes from (1) the ambiguous use of the word "open" (visible) vs "closed" (hidden) and (2) the fact that I've personally never seen until now a project that was "source available" but not open to modify under some license, so I haven't had to deal with the distinction.
(And since I'm a little insulted by your incredulity that a technical person could believe that to be true, FWIW, it's common knowledge among English speakers when to use "its" and "it's".)
And here, even Richard Stallman admits the obvious meaning of the expression:
> However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software”—and the one most people seem to think it means—is “You can look at the source code.”
Your definitions go contrary to the understandings and usages of every non-F/OSS person on the Internet.
For example, both "closed source" and "proprietary" are used to mean source-code-not-available in gaming circles.
Perhaps the open source movements should seek intuitive definitions of terms rather than invent vague nomenclature that only makes them unable to communicate with normal users.