Talk:Open source software

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Open source software article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Community?

There's no real mention of the concept of the 'open source community' in this page. It's been critical to the development of open source that developers form semi-social online communities in order to develop the software efficiently. The perception of 'joining a community' when one implements these software applications is a strong force in the advancement of open source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.13.114.125 (talk) 02:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Older Discussion

It would be interesting to see a section detailing the arguments of opponents of open source.

As much as I had asked, I still do not know of any license that is free but not open source, ie. free software is not a subset of open source? Anyone know of any such license, as there is a diagram drawn which I think is incorrect?

The question I think is based on an invalid assumption. First off, closed-source software (free or not) simply does not provide the source, thus the license doesn't regulate the user's right to the source; it's outside the scope of the license.
Secondly, and perhaps more to the point; some traditional Unix software, such as the Unix(tm) operating system itself, was distributed in source form, with a restrictive license which (somewhat vainly) attempted to limit redistribution. You can find a lot of mind-boggling discussions about the traditional AT&T Unix licenses, which eventually led to the construction of the BSD "unencumbered" source distribution (4.xBSD I think). Salus' 20 Years of Unix has a couple of chapters on the topic which I think are a good summary. This is probably not what you were looking for, but historically, this was a strong driving force behind (the licenses behind) BSD, GNU, and, eventually, Linux.
On a related topic, there is a number of licenses which are "almost open source" but not good enough for OSI approval. You can find them and some related discussions on the OSI site. (The "old-style" BSD license comes to mind. Also the Perl Artistic license is criticized as being too vague, but again, that's a different discussion.)-- era (Talk | History) 21:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acronyms

I wanted to make some minor edits but got mired in a thicket of acronyms. I'm not sure what the standards are for introducing acronyms in an article so I want to be careful about what I do. It looks like FSF is introduced in different sections, where it is spelled out also. There is also inconsistency between usage, as in "the FSF" or just "FSF" (same goes for OSI). In a longer article, do we want to keep redefinining terms like FSF and OSI? Once for each major section? Would it be better to just define the acronyms once, the first time they are introduced, and then later use the <acronym> tag (or wiki equivalent if there is one) as a helpful and less intrusive reminder? (If so, I'd suggest using it only on the first instance of the acronym in a section.) The specific section I'm looking at is "Open source software versus free software" which strikes me as being very inconsistent in it's use of acronyms and comparisons. I modified a couple of sentences about how both the FSF and OSI both write licenses and maintain lists of licenses, but it refers only to free licenses. I'm guessing the OSI might instead refer to "open source" licenses. Rufus Sarsaparilla 00:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think abbreviations should use "the" since that how it would read unabbreviated. The abbreviation should be introduced once on the first usage in the article. This would be consistent with linking style. I looked but found nothing on abbreviations in the WP:MOS. I went ahead and made the edits for the FSF and OSI. --71.161.213.20 05:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trademarks

I've removed the mention of a trademark on "OSI Certified": according to the USPTO's database, this mark is "DEAD", having been "Abandoned" on August 23, 2002, just two years after it was registered.

[edit] AFD

FYI, there's a discussion on an AFD for the new Alternative_terms_for_free_software article here. Nathan J. Yoder 01:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Njyoder: I don't think I've said this about any wikipedian before, and I think I've been very patient with you over the last few weeks, but, for the first time, I feel I must say: I think you are acting in bad faith.
Sticking an AFD on an article which I had only just started an hour before and was actively developing - that's unfriendly. Making false allegations in your AFD nomination - well, that's not too nice, but I did get a forum to defend myself. But, calling in one-sided assistance when you see that neutral wikipedians are not giving you the required consensus to get the page deleted? - that's just dishonest.
In comparison, when you stuck the AFD tag on the "Alternative terms..." article, I removed the link to that article from the free software article. I did this because I know, just as you know about this page, that it would there be seen by a number of partisans, which could bias the vote. I wanted this to be judged on it's merits, not right-of-weight.
But you've done what you've done, so I'll move on and explain what I'm working on...
To others: the articles: Libre software, FLOSS, FOSS, and OSS/FS contain a lot of duplication, and even contradiction. Some are too short to be useful, and others are long but with innaccuracies or information that doesn't belong on them. Their quality has not be improving significantly over time either.
So I started this article Alternative terms for free software which could replace them - or it could complement them. That depends on how the article turns out, and it depends on how other wikipedians feel about merging all or some of the above terms into this new article. Two wikipedians don't like the word "Alternative", so that might get chopped off.
Finally, if you'd like to help the development of the Alternative terms for free software page: Please do! Remember that it's a work in progress, and note that it should not contain ThisTerm Vs. ThatTerm debates, or ESR said and RMS replied paragraphs. The plan for the page is to list the facts, and historically place them along side the other related terms. To combine what's on the existing pages, keeping the info and throw out the contradictions. The "Timeline" sections should be thinned rather than added too, and as much information as possible should be factored into subsequent paragraphs that discuss all the terms together. Gronky 03:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

You're accusing ME of acting in bad faith? You denied mentioning POV issues, then I pointed out that you were talking about biases, then you acted as if the word "biases" suddenly didn't mean "POV." I pointed out that you suggested merging this article, then you rebutted by saying that because you said "ideally it should be merged" insead of just "it should be merged", that you weren't actually making a suggestion. You even denied merging content despite the fact that you obviously copied content from various articled and combined (read:merged) it into one. If anything, your insistence on playing semantic games is an act of bad faith. Your accusation of false accusations is patently false. If you really thought those other articles should have been merged, you should have asked for that, not just made an entirely new article merging things without asking anyone. Nathan J. Yoder 04:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Njyoder, I'm not going through all this again with you. My wikipedia contributions have slowed to a crawl ever since you started questioning my every contribution on the Richard Stallman article. I should ignore you, but when you stick AFD tags on pages as soon as I make them, and when you make numerous false accusations about me, I feel I have to respond. As I said, I've been very patient so far, but I give up. Gronky 10:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

That's how Wikipedia works, if you make a false statement or if you insert POV into an article, people challenge you. You can't complain just because you've gone relatively unchallenged until now. And this is the only article I've ever AfD'ed, yours or anyone elses, so don't act like this is a common occurance. You can accuse me of making false accusation all you like, but when you say there are issues with "biases," then proceed to deny that you mentioned anything about POV, it doesn't make ME look like the one who is being dishonest. Nathan J. Yoder 19:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How do Open Source developers make a living?

Just a suggestion for another topic on this great page, how about topic on how developers working on open source projects actually make a living / survive if they're working full time on the project.

Additionally, are they able to make any profit, or even to expand the project / company in order to improve its outputs.

Open source != gratis software. So people still do sell open-source sw just like all other programs, if they want to. In that light, is this question even relevant? The two are unrelated. Red Hat's releases, for example, are commercial in nature and yet they are open source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.194.250.98 (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Leading open source critics include Bill Gates."

Any evidence of this? Gates has publicly criticised the GPL, but Microsoft itself releases some open source software. (this comment made by User:Bakery2k, 15:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC) - sign your messages! --RealGrouchy 06:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC))

Agree. Reading stuff like this makes it pretty clear that arguing that Bill Gates/Microsoft is a leading open source critic is false. I removed it from the article.- David Björklund (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Also agree. Steven Weber (2004) in "The Success of Open Source" explains that "Microsoft has no strategy template for managing a relationship, even a hostile one, with the open source community. You can't buy that community; you can't drive it out of business; you can't hire away the talent; and you can't really tie it up in the courts (although Microsoft has tried each of these tactics)." It is simply not in Microsoft's interest to support open source software (alternatives to his) -- although just because it's a good reason for him to be opposed to it doesn't mean that he is... See the David's link above for more concrete evidence. --RealGrouchy 06:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, if i remember correctly, in New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman book "The World Is Flat" it cites Gate's crittism of OSS in an interview made with him. Mike 02:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The Digibarn link, if anything, proves that Gates didn't like software piracy in 1976. There was no open source movement back then, although some pirates may well have had "ideological reasons" to not pay for the software they used (though probably less articulated at the time).-- era (Talk | History) 22:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe he saw a convoluted way to make money out of it and changed his mind. Remember, the first stage is "embrace"! --Seans Potato Business 16:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I imagine this would all have been before the Halloween Documents. Up until the Embrace & Extend idea was being perpetrated inside Microsoft, their stance on open source was basically just vitriolic. There is some hilarious anti-open source FUD from Microsoft from the late 1990s, including some straight-faced comparisons to theft and communism (and I think it was only by mistake that they forgot to include taxes and the plague). One of my fav quotes from those days is "why not just give away cars, houses, and everything else?" Now that's sophisticated.-- era (Talk | History) 22:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral viewpoint label

I think a neutral viewpoint label should be put on the article again as it is a widely controversial issue. (this comment made 16:09, 31 December 2005 by User:172.216.170.51. Please sign your comments! --RealGrouchy 07:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC))

Just because it is a controversial issue doesn't mean it needs an NPOV warning. Such would require an actual dispute or edit war, specifically based around the neutrality/bias, to warrant such a label. If you have concerns with the way the information is presented, however, please speak up! --RealGrouchy 07:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need to bury the hatchet - Please!

I'd like to ask the many contributors to this and related articles to PLEASE get your act together. I consider the Wikipedia as an inavaluable information resource. The contributors to this article, the Open Source article, the FOSS article, the Open Source Initiative article...(ad nauseum) are obviously very knowledgeable and passionate about this topic and its accuracy. However, your squabbling and continued refusal to work together for the common benefit if Wikipedia and its many users has turned what should be an important and informative article into a fragmented, poorly organized and incoherent collection of marginally useful pages. I think that at the core you all may have the best of intentions. However, I'd like you all to step back and look at the result, and PLEASE work together to bring some accuracy and order to this situation.

Look at this from the standpoint of my 80-year-old Dad, or my 14-year-old son, coming onto Wikipedia wanting to know what "free software" is or what "Open Source" means. How frustrated would they be at getting a coherent answer to their questions, and how will this reflect on their view of Wikipedia as a resource?

I think that you all have the means, you just lack the will.

Thank you. --Stevesawyer 20:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I can feel your frustration, but think that a lot of problems we who work with and build f/oss all face every day can be rooted to someone's 80-year-old Dad or 14-year-old son beginning in a highly improper and ill-informed manner on their road to f/oss, improperly influence other people, etc..

Perhaps it would be easier to pile it all together and say "Free and Open-Source Software is about not paying and learning through doing.", but that's even a poorer entry than what is already here, and even more inaccurate.

Justizin (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither Free Software nor Open Source Software is "about not paying". It's about being able to do what you want with the software you have, and about being able to pass that along to others. In fact, the FSF has at times supported itself by selling Free Software. RossPatterson (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Typographical inconsistencies

This article and some others it links to, is not consistent in its terms. Is it "open-source" or "open source"? Both are used interchangeably seeminly with no point or thought. For example, the article is called "Open-source software", and the first word of it is "Open source software". Of course the correct form is "open source", but those who named the articles back then was perhaps not aware of it. Should we start renaming? Update: there is some justification for the hyphen here. So if we keep the title, let's at least be consistent. Haakon 19:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The list of Prominent Open Source projects and Foundations

The list of projects and orgs seems to be a strange list. I object to "Chandler (PIM)", "Sakai Foundation" and "Object Web" being listed as Prominent. Surely there are more prominent projects, and in any given field of speciality there is a prominent project.

I think that this list need to be short or removed The ones that should remain should be without argument "prominent": Apache, Debian, GNU, Mozilla, OpenOffice, SourceForge, the Linux kernel, and BSD, and possibly Eclipse or PHP. The rest should go.

I agree, the list is too long. I'd agree w/ the above list, but would add the Fedora Project (which I already have). Of course, if PHP is added, then what about other languages (ie: Perl)? - Gskuse 22:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, I'm going to pull softwaremonkeys.net since it's probably an ad, gaia and sugarforge since they don't link to an article which to me suggests they're probably not prominent. Feel free to revert or re-edit if I'm wrong. Serlin 23:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Open Source Initiative (OSI) versus The Free Software Foundation

There is no clear comparison of the two in this article. I think that FSF stresses more importance on free use and redistribution, while OSI mainly stresses importance on open source code, while reuse is secondary.

Ups! I just saw that section! Redrawing my comment. Lakinekaki

I object to this characterization: "The Open Source Initiative believes that more people will be convinced by the experience of freedom. The FSF believes that more people will be convinced by the concept of freedom." We should state what they say, not what we suppose they believe. And on this point, references are vital. Cherlin 21:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccurate paragraph

Several open-source software licenses have qualified within the boundary of the Open Source Definition. The most prominent example is the popular GNU General Public License (GPL).

As far as I can understand, GPL is not an open source licence. It is a free software licence. Should it be clarified? Felipe1982 06:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Many licenses are both Free *and* Open-Source, some licenses are one but not the other. The FSF website has an exhaustive list of licenses and whether they are "GPL Compatible". OSI has entirely different, but not necessarily contradictory, requirements - that is to say, a license satisfy extra requirements to be GPL compatible that may not affect its' OSI status.

Justizin (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"GPL-compatible" and "free software" are not the same, though. Licenses with patent licensing requirements ("you may not modify and distribute this software if you use patents to extract money from others over it") aren't GPLv2-compatible, but neither FSF nor anyone else ever reasonably called them non-free. --FOo (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
True, but in answer to Felipe1982's question, the GPL is both a Free Software license as the FSF defines it an an Open Source as OSI defines it. RossPatterson (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New to open source software

I'm a developer with many year's experience, though little on *nixes. If I wanted to 'get started' with Open Source ... i.e. learn how to actually use CVS, find a project, the structure (generally) of a project etc... where do I start?

Shouldnt the article include something in this direction? If not, care to help me out? :) Kierenj 13:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

...Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a help forum. — a thing 18:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Just following what I thought was a valid example -- articles all over Wikipedia have non-content-related questions all over the discussion pages. Is it also a guideline then that the article's subject matter can't be discussed in such a way on Talk pages? --Kierenj 07:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
In an attempt to be constructive, I've found and added a link to a guide as I requested. I hope this is acceptable Kierenj 10:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup: Open source software versus free software

The section brings across the issue and explains it quite well; However, at least one sentence in the first three paragraphs emphasizes that the debate is about different philosophies: Too often to be a good read, it should be rewritten somehow to sound better. --Tomcat 20:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be combined into the task of merging it with (moviting it to) the section Open source movement#Relations with the free software movement? --72.92.128.194 02:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of this information could be moved to Alternative terms for free software (I've added a link to this at the top of the terminology section in this article). This would also help reduce the size of the "open-source software" article. Gronky 18:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Public Domain

Open Source software can include public domain software. The article should be updated to reflect that by not mentioning "having a copyright which permits ..." as a requirement (opening paragraph). I'd edit it myself except I'm wickedly tired and I'd just goof it up :-) -- Tom St Denis

Actually not. OSS is licensed under GPL or other such Free/Open license. OSI and FSF agree on the definition, just not on what term they are defining. :) The point is that a Free or Open Source license must not only give permission to use the code, but require that new versions be licensed in the same way, with Free/Open access to the altered source code. Cherlin 21:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify, Tom St Denis is correct; both the FSF and OSI consider public domain software to be Free Software and Open Source Software, respectively. Public domain software is not copyleft, however--it is comparable to a permissive free software license. --Hamitr 01:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Open source meaning

I htink the thirst three rows are completely wrong. Open source doesn't mean freedom of copiying or modify, just that the source is public. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.221.57.12 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 13 January 2007.

Actually, that's not quite correct. "Open-source" has an official definition, the same way "free software" does. "Free software" doesn't mean you're free do to whatever with it, and "open-source" doesn't mean that the only requirement for something to be considered "open-source" is that the source code be publicly viewable. 80.233.255.7 13:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The term "open source" was simply not used to describe software prior to 1998. Since then, it has consistently been used to mean more or less the same thing as the FSF's definition of "free software". However, the term was used prior to 1998 outside of the software field, in a sense that has nothing to do with copyright or licensing -- namely, to describe news and intelligence (in the "CIA" sense) sources.

"Open source intelligence" refers to the gathering of intelligence from published sources, as opposed to secret ones. For instance, if the CIA wants to know what is going on in Russia, reading the Russian newspapers is an example of open-source intelligence, whereas sending someone to snoop in the Kremlin's garbage bins, or wiretapping Russian companies, is not. Open source intelligence is much cheaper. :) --FOo 04:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the term "open source" was used prior to the hijacking of the term by the OSI.[1].198.54.202.166 06:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's use capitals to distinguish it

I suggest that in this article the term "Open Source" be written with capital letters wherever it is used in the OSI definition. I say this because it is not entirely accurate to claim that only the OSI definition of "open source" is a valid definition.198.54.202.166 06:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Open Source Video Games

There aren't many games available on Linux. The design and distribution of such games could increase Linux's popularity and usability of open source applications. Open source video games could be used as a marketing tool for Linux as gaming and entertainment is principal reasons people use computers. An example would be Blender for animation.

Are there any open source video games? Let's put those up on the article to mark open source's notability.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.138.104 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Linux gaming, Alphabetical list of open source games, List of open-source games by genre, Open source games… --AVRS 08:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Afd: Free and open source software

FYI: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Free_and_open_source_software --Gronky 13:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Result of AfD was Keep

discuss a merger at Talk:Free_and_open_source_software#Merge_FS_.2B_OSS_here Lentower 01:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Opensource.svg

Image:Opensource.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no resonable justification in presenting the media in the particular section of this article.A description is sufficient in the context thus deleting the image and modifying the section accordingly Manquer (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you and the bot are talking about different images. I WP:CSDed yours a few days ago, but I don't have the faintest idea what the bot is talking about, that image is a Creative commons licensed image. -- Thinboy00 talk/contribs @75, i.e. 00:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Since Open Source Is Open Source you would think the company would release their own logo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.28.94 (talk) 04:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

They did, what they didn't license is their seal of approval, because it should not appear without their approval and so a license is counterproductive. --Thinboy00 @173, i.e. 03:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive quotation

Most of our references have entire paragraphs of quotations attached. This isn't generally how Wikipedia cites things. It appears to be somewhat of an excuse to include as much verbatim commentary from rms in the article as possible. Chris Cunningham (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether it was an excuse or not, it turned out that every case of a quotation in a reference was just calling out the specific words that back up the cited claim. That isn't necessary, and so I've removed all the quotations. RossPatterson (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Excellent, cheers. Chris Cunningham (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Attention from an expert

Please someone try to clearly state the difference between Free Software and Open source software in the lead of both articles. Thank you!--Kozuch (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Extensionally, there is practically no difference. That is, the terms refer to almost precisely the same set of software. The difference is one of connotation, emphasis, and political focus. "Open source software" has emphasized the competitive power of this software in the market and the competitive advantages of using and contributing to it, while "free software" has emphasized the educational and liberating power of being able to learn from and modify the software that you use. --FOo (talk) 06:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be best to merge the two articles.--Kozuch (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
This was proposed a long time ago. However, there are substantial barriers to doing so, not least of which is that there's no firm agreement as to what to call the resulting article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
If it is decided that the articles should be merged, the article Free and open source software seems like an appropriate place to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leirith (talk • contribs) 04:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Cathedral-and-the-Bazaar-book-cover.jpg

The image Image:Cathedral-and-the-Bazaar-book-cover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)