Talk:Open source/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

Merge Open Source ethics

IMO ethics is an importent aspect of open source. The page open source ethics could use a bit of cleanup, and could then be taken into open source as a section. Takers?Martijn Hoekstra 19:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with a Secret Sauce though? Reasonable privacy rights

I think Open Source can define both private and public Why should everything be open to a detriment of privacy rights? Open doesn't mean breaking the laws of Physics either. Open Source is a real balance though that clearly defines a product. The source is clearly defined privately to where it can be defended by the propriator. Without that we wouldn't know the 'source' of what's 'open' and would cease to exist as a real substance.

I don't understand the point of this comment. Closed source software can still implement an open system, for example, and open and closed source implementations of an open system can coexist, but are you trying to expand open source to include source that isn't open? I don't get it. -- PdS

It depends on who wants to partake The keyword here is access If I want to access an Open Source somewhere weather it is a fountain spring of water or oil coming out of the ground or software data then I can do so in the most uninhibited timely fashion possible. If I don't then it remains private so it stays efficient where I am not forced to use it for the wrong purposes. I just see it as a more efficient trust between mankind or Love. - anon1

Your right, open source doesn't mean everything has to be transparent. It factors down to the philosophy of collaboration and the methodology of accessibility. — Dzonatas 20:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I also had questions concerning freedom vs free beer. I would rather see the article state without extra unnecessary costs instead of at 'no cost' because I see Open Source as more of a definition of how to conduct great business rather then a definition of a type of money used. Although with the Internet today we can use Open Source to it's full advantage and not have to use less efficient methods like paper of digital government bills (what we consider the main form of trade today, only in the last few hundred years, it used to primarily be silver and gold) most of the time to transact. Not sure I have to check out the Money article. Those manifestations become more of a hindrance with the Internet and Free markets. I think cost can be attributed to exchange practices in Open Source software where you have to recontribute modified code. So it's not a free lunch but a strong work ethic I think. I don't know if I want to give cost a negative connotation. Not sure. -anon1

Licences

I would love to see a section with different open source licenses (GNU plublic, Debian, BSD) and their differences. Martijn Hoekstra 19:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

See open-source licenses. — Dzonatas 19:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What is Open Source and Why is it not Open Source Software

If we say Open Source is a Rectangle and Open Source Software is a Square, then we could say a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square. Open Source is about access to the origins of a product. Open Source Software is where the product's origins are the software source code. Open Source Cola doesn't have software source code, but its origins are the list of ingredients, the recipe, that make the product. Open source government doesn't have source code or a recipe, but its manner of access to information and how that information is enacted follows an open source philosophy. Therefore, this article focuses on open source and implores to involve more information that doesn't exclude everything except software.

that is so obvious. it doesnt even deserve an article. wheres the article on how to trim a beard? i think that is more productive than preaching to people to teach them how to share the blueprints to their products. Fsdfs 00:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Open Source can mean freedom or even to share. They are very similar but I think the term Open Source just means a source that comes from the ground or a location with free access. Open Source doesn't mean everyone will partake though. To me it means that if someone gives freely there are no strings attached or like false giving. Allot of spiritual elemants there too like love. -anon1

General

The article states: "Such a license may require that the source code be distributed along with the software". I don't think that this is true. GPL-licensed software is often distributed as a RPM file where one can't see the source code, but the source code is _readily available_. I believe the article should say "Such a license may require that the source code be readily available to the end-user". I realize that the statement says MAY, but we should go with how the GPL licenses software, as this is the most popular license, and it's the license that the article was focusing on. Sorry if I was wrong in the first place :P -Frazzydee 15:30, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that Donald Knuth is a good example of a open source proponent. While he released the source to TeX, which is certainly admirable, he did so under a license that barely makes the Open Source Definition: changes are only allowed through the cumbersome use of "change files". I'm not deleting him outright, because there may be something I missed.

I believe you have the licenses for LaTeX mixed up with TeX. There is nothing shady about TeX's license, AFAIK. Also, Knuth has been a generous donor to the FSF for many years -- CYD

The people section seems generally a bit unclear: is the intention to list vocal proponents of the movement (Perens, Raymond) or maintainers of influental open source software (Torvalds, Vixie). As mentioned above, I don't think Knuth is a prime example of the latter, either.

Um. I dont consider the lines between the Free Software movement and the Open Source philospohy to be "blury" at all. Free Software is about personal freedoms: the users freedom to copy, distribute and modify the software they use. Open Source is about the way to make the technically best software. Also, the list of "Open Source" projects is dodgy - try telling RMS that his Emacs is "Open Source" software! -- Asa

Personally, whether right or wrong, I find the dogmatic polarization being done between "open" and "free" to be distasteful. It smells muchly of FUD.

Ths distinction between Open Source and Free Software has absolutely nothing to do with software, if it in fact exists. Observe that the Open Source definition is a rebranding of the Debian Free Software Guidelines. I think many Open Source advocates just have different ideas about how to "sell" the idea that giving away software is a Good Thing. -- SamB

What is this sentence about "Remember section 5.2"? It smells strongly of a quote from Lessig, but there are no quotation marks.

Looks like it's ripped directly from section 5.6 of this document. It's linked at the end of the paragraph, but it definitely needs some working into the context of the article. Is this plagiarism, or is it used with permission? Maybe it should be deleted altogether... -- Wapcaplet
Actually, looking at it more closely, these two paragraphs (beginning with "When talking about source code...") are both taken from the article linked above, and have been here for a while. I'd definitely vote to either rephrase or remove them. -- Wapcaplet

I'm not too clear on the reason for linking to the Open Directory Project. Sure, it's open, but it's not source code. -- Wapcaplet

how to use hyphens

As I have said on various occasions, anyone who doubts the utility of the marvelously efficient information-conveying power of the humble punctuation mark known as the hyphen, when it is used in its traditional way, should consider the difference in meaning between two newspaper headlines:

New age-discrimination rules proposed
New-age discrimination rules proposed

or:

The disease causing poor nutrition was identified.

(which means the disease that causes poor nutrition...) versus:

The disease-causing poor nutrition was identified.

(which means the disease that is caused by poor nutrition).

A web site asked Who are the best-connected physicists?, but omitted the hyphen, and I wondered for a second what exactly a "connected physicist" is, that being apparently prior to the question of which of those are the best.

Similarly:

text-only
Detroit-based organization
web-based
a state-of-the-art product
board-certified
thought-provoking
time-sensitive
case-sensitive
government-issued photo ID
light-gathering surface
award-winning

etc. Accordingly, I think this page should be about Open-Source software rather than Open Source software. The topic is hereby opened for public discussion before I undertake any editing. 131.183.81.100 22:18 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

I agree in general with hyphenating compound adjectives, although with proper nouns (Open Source Definition) I think one should stick with the original hyphenation. Otherwise, though, I agree that it is "open-source software" (and "free software", but "free-software community") etcetera.

This isn't so hard. Eric Raymond wrote on http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html:

(A note about usage. In accordance with normal English practice, the term is "open source" standing alone, but "open-source" used as an adjective or in compounds; thus, "open-source software".)

I suggest we follow that guideline, but you have to be careful since it often looks like an adjective, but isn't: Open Source Definition, Open Source Initiative -- both lack a hyphen. It's clearer when you think of OSD as "Definition of (Open Source)" rather than the incorrect "Definition that is open-source". In other words, you use "open-source" when it is a property (adjective) and "Open Source" when referring to the object or the thing (noun).

So, to be clear Open Source Definition and similar are not exceptions or "the original" at all. They are grammatically correct.

I wrote a bit more about this on Talk:List of open source software packages, but the above is all you need to know.

Daniel Quinlan 22:35 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This is actually not standardized, and a matter of some debate between style manuals. In general the trend is towards less hyphenization, but of course that isn't universal. But in any case, open source software and open-source software are both correct and widely used. --Delirium 10:25, Oct 22, 2003 (UTC)

Is it understood irrespective of the hyphens? If so, we don't need to worry much. There may be a problem, however, when we suggest that our work should be hopefully open source, which is not that same as hopefully suggesting that it be open source. Since language is about as open source (or openly sourced) as any institution can be, we can probably do no better than hopefully wish for improved common practice when deploying "hopefully" as an adverb; never as an adjective. But, should we find this to be a hopeless task, we should console ourselves with the hopeful observation that the speakers are mostly understood, even hopefully understood by those who hoped for understanding while understanding, even when hopefully using "hopefully" hopelessly inadequately, and acknowledge that the situation is not quite so hopelessly impossible as a purist might have hoped for.


BTW, the first three paragraphs look kind of funny, shifting back and forth between "open source" and "open-source". (Just an observation from a reader.) Kyk 06:42, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That's because it's used without the hyphen as a noun and with it as an adjective. --Shallot 13:51, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Well, that is why it appears that way, but I think the reason that it looks odd to me, as an American, is that that practice is not one I ever see in America. Is this a practice in Great Britain, obviously unknown to myself, perhaps? Kyk 21:15, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The Open Source Initiative has a similar definition (see the question "How do I use the term "open source"). "Open source" with no hyphen is a noun, and refers to anything which has open source code; "open-source" with a hyphen is used in the adjective form. So one might say: "Open source is a good method of software development", or "Apache is open-source software." I don't think the first sentence should begin with the hyphenated form, though, since the article name itself is not hyphenated. I'll see if I can rephrase it. -- Wapcaplet 22:06, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Read above, the sections starting with 131.183.81.100 22:18 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC) and ending with Delirium 10:25, Oct 22, 2003 (UTC). Brendan Hide 18:56, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Open source software. My two cents: the hyphenation rule is merely stylistic, and used only to avoid confusion, like in the "New age discrimination" example given. However, as no one would seriously misread the unhyphenated version of "open source software" to mean "Open source-software", (as "source software" doesn't make much sense) and even if they did think that, the confusion would be minimal. So personally I say no hyphen.

Further, If I were the one coining the phrase I have removed the space too (Opensource software) as that's the term I believe it will eventually become, much like to-day became today. However, this spelling seems quite rare currently. </2 cents> —Pengo 04:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Meta: The stuff about hyphenation on this talk really should move to some more appropriate page -- hyphen, perhaps ? --DavidCary 10:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stallman

I find that the way Richard Stallman's name is used in the current wiki "Open source" article to be confusing. There is no other discussion of his role in the main article text. And the note attached to his name in the list of those persons associated with "Open Source" says that he is actually associated with a rival concept. And then the note goes on to say that Richard prefers not to be associated with the term "open source". So why are we trying so hard to associate him with "open source" here in this Wiki article? (I tried to remove him, and someone reverted it). Maybe some more detail in the actual article about Richard Stallman's association with Open Source would make this make more sense. Bevo 02:40, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I don't think we're trying all that hard. Let me try something in the article, let me know what you think. Daniel Quinlan 03:10, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)
I like it now a whole lot better. Bevo 03:22, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The "anti-Open Source" paper [1] seems to be anti-Free Software, not anti-OSS. It's the FSF and the Free Software people who are arguing that all software should be free, not the OSI and Open Source people. So I think the link should be moved to the Free Software article, even though the author thinks he's talking about Open Source.

repositories

Would it be appropriate to add http://sourceforge.net to the list of organizations, as that is a repository of a *lot* of software that is either open source or free (and I think all free software is also open source, in which case savannah too may be listed)? Kyk 06:41, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sourceforge, certainly. Savannah, I would say so but the Free Software zealots would be up in arms for sullying their Holy Cause by association with the traitorous Open Source barbarians. Salsa Shark 06:47, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
What do you think their opinion might be about my suggestion that all Free software is also Open Source -- perhaps in analogy to all Best Of All software also being Better Than Most software -- that is, do they view Open Source as a lesser quality that is included in Free? Kyk 06:51, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC) (PS: I enjoyed how you phrased your point.)
Grin. I've never heard Free Software dumping on Open Source because of quality concerns; in my experience their interest in the difference is 100% politics. There's probably something on http://www.fsf.org/ that explains their exact feelings on the subject. Salsa Shark 07:02, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Should the article still be flagged for rewording concerning NPOV? Brendan Hide 18:56, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I see Raraoul agrees with me that it shouldn't.

If anybody disagrees, though I don't think anybody would, please indicate why here. Also, please be specific. Brendan Hide 20:06, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that the bias is towards open-source in the section titled 'The Open Source Debate', or at the very least, needs to be rewritten:
  • "The debate over open source vs. closed source (alternatively called proprietary development) is very much a religious war." Surely the debate isn't as heated as that suggests.
  • "While vast numbers of the current technology community members are proponents of open source, there are also people on the other side of the debate." Bandwagon defense: Everyone who is anyone supports position X.
  • "The most obvious complaint against open source software involves the complaint that making money through some traditional methods, such as the sale of the use of individual copies and patent royalty payments, is much more difficult and sometimes impractical with open source software." The sentence suggests that those who support closed-source do so out of greed.
  • "Large scale open-source projects such as Linux, FreeBSD, or Apache tend to discredit this argument." Take out the 'tend to', and this sentence is directly saying that those who support closed-source software is wrong; as is, it's an indirect attack against an opposing viewpoint.
  • "First, it is no longer true that OSS is necessarily a volunteer effort; increasingly this is actually not true." This sentence doesn't actually say anything, offering no support; simply stating that one of the criticisms against open-source software is wrong.
  • "In the end, an open source software program always greater flexibility to end-users, since any end user can take the program and modify it for their needs." A moot point, since most end-users do not have the ability to make significant, useful changes to a program. Surely, the author was aware of this?
At least that section needs to be updated. Almafeta 03:01, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Surely the debate isn't as heated as that suggests. This is no proof of a bias toward opensource !
  • vast numbers of the current technology community members are proponents of open source It's a fact AFAIK: the most popular weblog about technology is Slashdot (which is part of the opensource network "OSTG"). At least the traffic monitoring site Alexa says so: alexa.com
  • The sentence suggests that those who support closed-source do so out of greed. Your interpretation
  • This sentence doesn't actually say anything, Sorry but it's a fact there is an increasing number of OSS projects and developpers that receive money from their users (paypal and the like) or from sponsors.
  • since any end user can take the program and modify it for their needs." A moot point, since most end-users do not have the ability to make significant, useful changes to a program The odds that among the users some of them happen to be also programmers are increasing as society changes and OSS gains popularity.

User:Raraoul (this 2nd version of my comments adds formatting, corrections and an Alexa link)

I am not happy with that section of the article, either. It lacks structure and omits important arguments. For now, I only have some comments on what's been said here:

  • Slashdot is heavily biased in favor of Open Source and I see no reason to believe that it is the most popular website among computer scientists. There is certainly an agreement that Open Source is not all bad, but when and to what extent it is appropriate is not a call that has been made yet in the scientific community (nor, for that matter, in the Open Source community).
  • The lack of proven business models has been a common complaint about Open Source from the beginning and has remained a key issue to this day. Programmers want to be paid for their work -- that has nothing to do with greed and nothing in the quoted sentence suggests it does.
  • There is plenty of evidence that for an increasing number of key projects, most development is underwritten by corporate sponsors. But that is only true for a fraction of Open Source projects, and I agree that sources should be quoted.
  • If the possibility to change the code offers flexibility to some it is worth noting. And if you are lacking the ability, you can still ask or hire someone who does. That is not a moot point at all, but might be worth some explanation. Rl 14:42, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Almafeta and Rl above; the majority of this article is in need of overhaul. Here's my take on it:

  • The "Open Source and Free Software" section seems fairly good. But then, I may be biased, since I wrote most of it :-)
  • The phrase "open source" needs to be hyphenated in many places.
  • "The open[-]source movement" is in dire straits: it contains several comparisons with free software that should go in the previous section; there's still "The line between the two is somewhat blurry", which is untrue and should be clarified; the section contains some comparisons with proprietary software that belong in the next section; aside from the heading, this section does not seem to be about the open-source movement at all.
  • "The open[-]source debate" section wanders quite a lot, especially in the first paragraph. To me, the last two paragraphs in the previous section (with the exception of the last sentence) do more to explain and justify the benefits of open source than than this entire section does. Much should be stricken, condensed, and rewritten for neutrality.

When I can tell what POV the author(s) have by reading the article, it is not sufficiently NPOV. The authors' POV is quite obvious in this article. -- Wapcaplet 19:19, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree. While I belive Open Source software is generally better; any Wikipedia article with a sentence like "The Open Source software development model is considered a better software development model compared to proprietary one" is biased by definition. This article should be reworded. Martin-C 03:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Duplication cost

The article states: "After all, the cost of making a copy of a software program is essentially zero, so per-use fees may make sense for physical products but are not reasonable for software programs." This is not at all obvious or objective. Just because it doesn't cost much to copy software doesn't mean it's not reasonable to sell the software (incidentally, software is not typically sold "per-use", usually it is sold for unlimited use per person). It should also be kept in mind that most products are sold at well above their manufactoring costs. Software, in particular, may be very expensive to create in the first place. Anyway, this is all common knowledge. The quoted statement above is clearly biased and probably should be removed. -- Anonymous

  • Agreed. Some physical products also have a duplication cost that is very low: compact discs, for instance, only cost a few cents to make, and yet are sold at $5-$50 depending on their content - a pretty big markup, even if distribution/shipping costs are subtracted. (Isn't commercial software most often licensed, though? I've never seen commercial software that permitted unlimited use by one person; it seems more common for it to be licensed for use on X computers, with X being 1 in most cases). -- Wapcaplet 18:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I changed "so per-use fees are unreasonable" to "so per-use fees are perhaps unreasonable" because I agreed that it was too strongly worded. It is generally agreed that companies can mark-up products in order to make a profit, but it is also generally felt that companies should not mark-up to an unreasonable extent. A 10% markup on a physical object is reasonable, but in the case of paying for each copy of software, the markup (based on 'manufacturing cost') is enormous (a billion % or whatever). This sentence should stay in the article since it is a statement of a reasonable and widespread common-sense opinion. If someone wants to re-word it to make this more explicit, that would be fine (but perhaps unnecessarily cumbersome). There are many other complexities to the debate (such as the legitimacy of recouping R&D costs even if production costs are zero), but I still believe the sentence describes a rational concern.


Software and music, etc. aren't sold. You buy the CD or the paper of the book but not their content . You mostly get a licence to use it but property rights are still retained by the owner (author, etc.). This is what IP deals with. Considering the Net duplication costs can be nearly zero or at least so low that it does not matter any more. -- Anonymous

  • "A 10% markup on a physical object is reasonable." Did you mean profit or markup? The standard markup when my grandfather ran an hardware store was 100% in the 40's. I believe this is still the retail standard. When you subtract all the costs (labor, building, taxes, law suits, utilities, interest, furniture,...) your are lucky to make 10% profit. I do not have a MBA, just practice experience, and so take this with a grain of salt Jimwelch 16:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia=perfect example

I was surprised noone mentioned wikipedia's relationship to open-source. I added it under the list of Projects and organizations and wikisoftware under Examples of open-source software, but maybe someone who knows more about either subject could add more. inebriation station 2005-01-07 20:37 (UTC)

I changed it to MediaWiki since Wikipedia is the encyclopedia project, it's really just a user of the Mediawiki software. Rhobite 21:37, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
Add a top link to Open Content, noting that this article is about software, but that the term has other applications. Perhaps we need an Open Source movement page Stirling Newberry 22:23, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, we have an Open source movement article. We may want to chop a paragraph or two out of Open source and put it in the sub-article, the section on this main article is a bit long. Rhobite 22:56, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Open Gaming License

You can hardly expect the Open Gaming License to be significantly represented at SourceForge, since it's not a software license. It's linked to from open content, which is probably better, but the SourceForge test isn't perfect. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:21, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then it categorically doesn't belong in this article. It belongs in open content. The SourceForge test is 100% fine for this article. Daniel Quinlan 21:55, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I removed the NPOV tag that was just placed in the article as there has been no recent discussion of POV problems in the "Debate" section. There seemed to be issues in November, but since the tag was removed since that time, and since no new issues have seemed to show up here, I don't see a reason for the tag at this time. However, if there are reasons, please state them here before using the tag... please.  :) — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 02:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I put the NPOV tag up; I read the talk page, and there didn't seem to be a resolution. THe last word on the subject was, and I quote


"When I can tell what POV the author(s) have by reading the article, it is not sufficiently NPOV. The authors' POV is quite obvious in this article." -- Wapcaplet 19:19, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


So I thought the tag belonged. What was the resolution precisely? My first impression was that that part was heavily biased, hence my visit to the talk pages in the first place. And yes, I am a newbie, so please don't burn me for putting up the tag without permission :) User:Borisblue

I'm not trying to burn you, but it's just important to know why this tag is being placed on the page. It just seems astounding to me that the POV issues of five months ago weren't resolved at that time. I would suggest attempting to rewrite the section in an attempt to achieve NPOV before resorting to the tag again. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 15:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Actually, I'm playing devil's advocate here; I don't spend a cent on propietery software- I've even volunteered in a few open content projects- in my eyes this section does seem blatantly POV, although it blatantly supports MY POV, which makes it much harder to fix. I'd thought that a nice way to start balancing the POV would be to add an external link against Open Source software. However, apparently there isn't a single webpage in the whole of the internet critical of Open Source! Did a google search on "arguments against open source" and came up with absolutely zilch; the only stuff I got were from articles which said, for example "some of Microsoft's idiotic arguments against open source were..." Maybe a few MS employee wikipedians can help?- user:Borisblue

Time to remove Cleanup tag?

It seems to me that the article has become "reasonably cleaned up", so I would like to remove the tag. Any objections? — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 18:10, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

As no one seem to disagree with you I've taken away the cleanup-tag. Let's celebrate and continue to improve the article! David Björklund 22:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Redirect?

While trying to clean up the opening paragraph, I came across this line- This article deals mainly with open source software. The line is still there, (I just changed "mainly" to "primarily") but if this is the case, shouldn't the title of the article be "Open-source software" rather than "Open source"? Open Source is the more general term- I feel it should redirect to OSS and not the other way round, or perhaps it should go to a disambiguation page. -user:Borisblue

I thought "open source" applied to the documentation and not just the software... and perhaps even documentation and content in general. So I think it's ok as-is, and OSS should redirect here. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 02:54, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... checked out wiktionary and the definition was "(computing) Of, or relating to source code that is publicly available"


for [2] it says "A method and philosophy for software licensing and distribution designed to encourage use and improvement of software written by volunteers by ensuring that anyone can copy the source code and modify it freely."

Nothing on documentation here; I'd think "open source" only refers to source code. As such, I'm removing the This article deals mainly with open source software' line. I still think Open Source should redir to OSS, since they apparently refer to the same thing and OSS is less vague -User:Borisblue

The GFDL itself backs up my position. Source isn't just software, it's any textual content, such as the Wikipedia itself. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 12:29, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Open source can apply philosophically to many sources of information. It is not just about software. On-line law libraries have a movement to be even more open source then they are. Some laws state that law codes must stay freely and publicly available -- open source in essence. More than the textual content, it also applies to any information, pictures, maps, authors, and etc. The OSD just defines a boundary on open source that applies to software and related information. Mr. Ballard 14:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
By golly, you're right. I guess my coffee hadn't kicked in yet.  :) Would you mind updating the opener to reflect this? — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 14:25, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
I don't get it; we already have an article on open content which deals with the stuff you were talking about, ie information, maps pictures, etc.If you talk to anybody about open source, they'll assume it's about a programme. If you say open content, they assume it's stuff like wikipedia. I'd consider dictionary.com a pretty authorative source, even if wiktionary isn't; User:Borisblue
I've seen open source easily attached to software and its movement where others strive to set itself apart either as different or not. Its philosophy started well before the OSI trademark, which stood to present the pragmatic case against business as usual. At first, I voted to move the article to "open source software" to just describe the software, but there is enough movement , culture, and philosophy background to support this article to the literal means of open source. I've never confused "source" to only mean a program's source code. Mr. Ballard 14:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough then, in that case, would you mind changing the wiktionary entry of open source to reflect this? I'm not sure I have the expertise to define it properly user:Borisblue
Updated: open-source. Mr. Ballard 23:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)