[not entirely OT] proper terms for grades of freedom

[Oleg Goldshmidt]

On 6/10/10, Shachar Shemesh <shachar at shemesh.biz> wrote:
> Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
>>
>>>  Binary distribution, even of unmodified code, was
>>> not allowed.
>>
> This is not true. DJB did allow distribution of unmodified binaries, so
> long as they were compiled with unmodified toolchains.

This is a response to Shimi, not to me.

>> That may not fit the "Open Source Definition" then,
> Nothing that fits your criteria will. If you are not allowed to
> distribute or make changes, then it is not open source.

I am not looking for "Open Source". I am looking for a *term* for such
a license. In general, we know what "open source" or "free software"
means. How do you call what I describe? It is definitely not "open
source".

> Also, when IBM originally distributed the BIOS's source code, they
> allowed anyone who so wished to see the source, but allowed neither
> modifications nor distribution. This is from memory only.

Correct. I know this well (and lectured on it). Somehow this example
slipped my mind. Thanks!

Still no term though...

Thanks, Shachar,

-- 
Oleg Goldshmidt | pub at goldshmidt.org