|
I think this history is a bit out. I thought open source was quite normal in the early days of computing and closed source came later. At the time it wasn't clear that copyright was applicable to computer software, and Bill Gates had some part in promoting the concept of packaged non-redistributable software. Didn't Stallman work with ITS, not Unix?
Revert
I reverted this article because an anonymous user removed a large amount of information and added a large number of irrelevant "see also"s to open-source related stuff. Rhobite 03:55, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
Subtle but important distinction
It is important to distinguish closed source from proprietary software. The existing text of this topic would fit better under proprietary. The writer assumes closed source is primarily distributed in binary form and that the source is not available.
In looking at all the possible combinations of source availability and distribution methods, there is an important class of software that is best described as closed source.
There is nothing that precludes releasing source code under specific licensing terms. These terms could be restrict or encourage redistribution of the source. In fact, it is likely that distribution of source code instead of binary artifacts is the most efficient and profitable.
As a counter example is generative programming. Systems built with generative programming techniques may be written in languages for which no widely available compiler/interpreter exists. The source for these systems may be made available to users of the software to verify that the intent of the logic, within the context of the language, is correct. Such systems may not even use a language per se (e.g. natural language systems.)
In any case, the tone of the existing text is distinctly open source vs. proprietary and does not make some important distinctions.
I'll try to craft an alternate definition and post it for review.
| 
