Open source |
=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. 00:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
=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 - 15:30, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I m not convinced that , which is certainly admirable, he did so under a license that barely makes the [http://opensource.org/docs/definition_plain.html 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
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! --
Personally, whether right or wrong, I find the dogmatic polarization being done between open and free to be distasteful. It smells muchly of .
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
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 [http://akira.arts.kuleuven.ac.be/andreas/english_paper_gaidai.html 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... --
: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. --
I m not too clear on the reason for linking to the [http://www.dmoz.com/ Open Directory Project]. Sure, it s open, but it s not source code. --
= 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. 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 , but the above is all you need to know.
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. -- 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.) 06:42, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
: That s because it s used without the hyphen as a noun and with it as an adjective. -- 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 21:15, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
::The [http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/faq.php 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. -- 22:06, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
::Read above, the sections starting with 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> — 04:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Meta: The stuff about hyphenation on this talk really should move to some more appropriate page -- 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. 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. 03:10, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)
:: I like it now a whole lot better. 03:22, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The anti-Open Source paper [http://stlr.stanford.edu/STLR/Articles/01_STLR_4/article.htm] 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) 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. 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 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. 07:02, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
= NPOV tag =
Should the article still be flagged for rewording concerning NPOV 18:56, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I see 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. 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. 03:01, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
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:
I agree with Almafeta and Rl above; the majority of this article is in need of overhaul. Here s my take on it:
When I can tell what POV the author(s) have by reading the article, it is not sufficiently 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. 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
::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
= 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. 20:37 (UTC)
:I changed it to MediaWiki since Wikipedia is the encyclopedia project, it s really just a user of the Mediawiki software. 21:37, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
::Add a top link to 22:23, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:::Yeah, we have an 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 21:21, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
: Then it categorically doesn t belong in this article. It belongs in 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. :) — 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
: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. — 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-
=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 — 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! 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. -
: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. — 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 [http://www.dictionary.com] 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 -
:The GFDL itself backs up my position. Source isn t just software, it s any textual content, such as the Wikipedia itself. — 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. 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 — 14:25, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
:::I don t get it; we already have an article on
:::::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. 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
::::::Updated: [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Open-source open-source]. 23:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
= Ownership. =
Who really owns anything Only those who lay claim to it, and really, once they re dead, they don t own it anymore. So who owns it when they re dead Others. Others who inherit it, legally or illegally. Regardless, nothing is eternally owned by someone, so nothing is entirely owned because eventually, it will be up for grabs.
So how does that affect open source Or did you really mean to comment on property
= Layout & Content =
After I have glared at the article for awhile, I moved some sections around to put an overall transition together. I ve noticed that some sentences or paragraphic ideas are repeated several times. Redundancy is good to stress points, but it seems like the same ideas are just covered from different view points (not different point of views). The section about the participants and the model seem like that can be combined as they present the same overall idea, but one subjects the essay the other subjects the Core/Peripheral contrast. I added the search link to the related topics because there are so many related articles that it saved space. Comments 02:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
= OpenSource logo =
does anyone know when is the logo inargurated 09:17, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
= =
One of the most confusing articles I ve ever encountered. So many views. Does anyone really understand Open Source -- 11:23, May 10, 2005
:That s why the cleanup tag is there. At any rate, the article is far better than it was just a month ago. You might want to realize that complaints about articles here are generally rejected in favor of fixing the issues that exist in the article. What issues do you see exactly — 16:30, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
= Are the Internet standards Open Source =
I have always assumed that the Internet standards are Open Source. Or at least the basic standards. But I find nothing about that in the article. Is my assumption wrong or hasn t anyone yet thought of putting that rather interresting piece of information in it 13:30, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
:See 14:19, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
The 10:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
= Open Source damaging to commercial market =
wrote many see the introduction of free software as damaging to the market for commercial software. Well, of course it is. That s how the free market works. So I removed that (and most of the rest of his edit). In retrospect, maybe it should just be put differently. Something like free software constitutes a new form of competition that some deem unnatural in the free market because it doesn t directly involve money. That doesn t sound quite right, but I don t have a problem with this new competition, so maybe I m not the right person to put this complaint into words. With the word directly I refer to the fact that free software can be used for commercial purposes. For Linux there are the distributions. And manufacturers more and more often provide free software with their products (eg editing software with cameras). Free software can be seen as a means to make money with something else. 08:48, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
:Well, we can always quote what opponents of Open Source say. But even this no money directly involved is a weak argument, this is a standard strategy for 09:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
::I don t think any advocate of open-source will ever be able to convincingly counter the argument that free software disrupts the commercial software market. Ah well, you guys had better censor out / dilute this argument then, eh -- 16:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
:::Well, yeah. Of course non-commercial software is going to disrupt the commercial software market, in much the same way the restaurant industry might be disrupted if a large franchise started giving away free food. When it comes down to the line, people would rather get their (commercial and non-commercial) software for free, if they know they have the option. The argument isn t censored or diluted in this article; the term free software being perceived as anti-commercial is mentioned (though this seems like a different matter--it s one thing to be non-commercial, but another entirely to be anti-commercial), and the Open vs. closed source section discusses the matter to some extent, though it could stand to be improved. Just how much open-source software disrupts the sale of commercial software is probably up for debate, but I think everyone can agree that there s disruption. And as far as I m concerned, the occasional disruption is what keeps a free market innovative. -- 18:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
::::Be careful about commercial , folks. A lot of Open Source software is commercial. Linux, Apache, MysSQL, and qt are all largely commercial software. What they are not is proprietary . Big difference. 18:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
:::::Ehm...., Linux is not commercial, but the distributions are (at least the ones I know of). Commercial means money is involved and Linux (the kernel) can be downloaded for free. Right 08:07, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
::::::Most of Linux kernel development today is done by people who get paid for it by for-profit companies like IBM, HP, or Red Hat. Apparently these companies believe it to be a sound investment that helps their profits. That meets my criteria for commercial funding, even though development method and licensing aren t necessarily what we re used to. 11:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
:::: occasional disruption is what keeps a free market innovative Are you sure I thought it was fair competition that kept a market innovative Many people consider that Microsoft giving away Internet Explorer for free destroyed the market for other proprietary web browsers (eg Netscape). Did this help keep the market innovative
:::::Where did 21:42, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
:::::No, the problem (at least as far as the antitrust lawsuit was concerned) was that Microsoft leveraged its monopoly on Windows to destroy its competition. Making something freely available is not the same as integrating it with another product. MSIE is not free in the same way that Firefox is. MSIE may be free (beer), but Firefox is free (speech). -- 23:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::::Where free as in beer = gratis and free as in speech = libre . :) — 00:01, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
::::Much OSS software clones the featureset of proprietary software. Think OpenOffice, Firefox (cloning Opera) and Linux (cloning UNIX). These clones benefit from the innovation, usability testing and R&D of the proprietary software houses, but infiltrate the market with free versions of the software. This reduces the incentive for commercial innovation in the market, as more OSS cloners are likely to offer a free version almost immediately afterwards. -- 21:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
:::::Firefox is well ahead of IE and even Opera in terms of features, especially when you consider all the available extensions and the huge extension development community it has. Also, I believe this argument to be untimely, as there are multitudes of open-source offerings today that never had a commercial equivalent. It s just that we ve seen several key categories of software being commodified as people have grown resistant to the costly upgrades to new versions of software where new developed features are adding virtually no value in terms of what customers actually want or use. It s very clear how arguments like this are made: when people get all their news from big corporate media, they tend to focus on what the corporate media finds to be important, and it often is quite insignificant compared to the real story as a whole. Open source is far bigger than MS getting its product lines beaten up with free alternatives. — 21:42, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Well, Open Source and innovation is a fascinating subject, and there are a number of reasons why Open Source tends to innovate more slowly than proprietary software development. However, as far as cloning is concerned, proprietary companies do the exact same thing. Microsoft invented neither the spreadsheet nor the word processor, they cloned what was already there. Neither Netscape nor Opera invented the browser, they cloned what already existed (as Open Source, incidentally). AOL didn t invent instand messaging, they cloned what others had come up with. Unix was based on ideas of older operating systems and many of the things that made it great were actually developed as Open Source software in Berkeley. — You are describing how software development has always worked, Open Source or not.
As for what Microsoft did to Netscape: You d be surprised. Yes, when Microsoft started giving away a browser for free, that got us a lot of innovation as long as the competition between Netscape and Microsoft lasted (which wasn t that long given the means Microsoft had at hand). Innovation stopped only after Microsoft had managed to practically seal the market. 21:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
:I agree with what you re saying in that commercial cloners do the same as OSS cloners. However, commercial cloning still abides by the rules of the market, and must compete at cost. There will come a point where it is not commercially viable to clone other software because the market is saturated and the returns would not cover the costs. OSS software, on the other hand, does not abide by the same rules. It can introduce clones that needn t be commercially justifiable. In doing so, OSS removes the incentive for others to invest money in software devlepment. -- 22:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
::I m not sure I follow. Yes, OSS developers are not interrested in whether a solution is commercially justifiable. So And if the market is saturated (do you mean by solutions or instances - that difference really only exists in the commercial sector), then why would they put time into solving a problem that has already been solved OSS also follows the rules of the market. It s just that cost of production is zero (it s the byproduct of a hobby) and distribution cost is also next to zero (Internet) and therefore the price is also zero. 08:07, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
I d hesitate to say the cost of OSS production is zero. As noted above, much significant open-source development occurs in a commercial environment, and you could still measure the man-hours that go into any project, regardless of cost. Its predominantly zero-cost nature isn t due to low production or duplication costs, but due to the choices of its copyright holders. -- 23:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
= OSI creation & Netscape strategy session =
it seems that both things happened in february and the ambiguous dating makes it hard to know what happened first. i ve tried to find some sort of timeline so as to solve the ambiguity but my efforts failed, perhaps someone else maybe succesful. :exactly -- both things happened. Many business and programmers published sources on usenet, and Netscape mentioned its intention to do the same. The strategy session happened, and they advertise their ideas to Netscape. Netscape made a few changes with those ideas when it finally released the sources. There is a timeline at OSI of their events.
= LinkFix Dump =
: For more information, see:
There aren t that many links that are awry in this article, but there are a whole lot of them to go through. Someone fixing them would be nice. — ) 17:02, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
LinkFix dump for Open source , no edits made:
FLOSS % Free/Libre/Open-Source Software Linusâ law % Linus s law BSD % Berkeley Software Distribution Extreme programming % Extreme Programming Openoffice.org % OpenOffice.org Open Source Development Labs % OSDL Free culture % Free Culture Free/Libre Open Source Software % Free/Libre/Open-Source Software `
= better introduction paragraph =
The article currently starts :Open source means when sources of information, code, pictures, maps, authors, and everything related are all publicly viewable and openly modifiable.
The when and everything seems to imply that open source is some distant time and/or place when all information is public, something like a gift economy or transparent society is a description of some distant time and/or place.
But I think of open source as refering to certain things that already exist now. It s an attribute of something , not a description of an environment.
Also, consider the situation where I sell some product, and I bundle the source code with that product -- but I don t give the source code away free by itself to the public . The publicly viewable seems to imply this product is not open source , but (my interpretation of) the [http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php definition of open source] seems to say this product is open source.
To fix those flaws, I changed the first paragraph to say
:Something is open source when it includes everything needed to make improvements to it. In particular, open-source software includes a copy of all the source code. Open source hardware includes the CAD drawings necessary to build another copy. Also, open source typically implies that the source is licenced under terms that allow a person to legally sell it or give it away to others, without any fee or royalty.
But that was reverted.
I would welcome any other suggestions on how to fix those flaws. (Or am I just mistaken on those points) -- 19:42, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:I believe the replacement to be far less precise than what was there before, and also includes a needless reference to open source hardware. I welcome enhancements to the existing opener, of course, but less precision is the wrong direction. — 20:03, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
::It appears the confusion starts when open source understood only as a tangible attribute to software, but it is simplier and more general in its full meaning. 20:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Would you agree that open source hardware is one kind of all open source stuff -- 10:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I tried making changes to the opening paragraph also, and they were reverted by . My comments follow his —Pengo
There is still confusion with open source that newbies think it means software, which is not only what it means. We should not give a definition that only includes software and excludes all other products. That would be npov. Here is the definition by Pengo: :denotes that a product includes permission to use its source code, design documents, or origins. Note that source code is a form of origins, so it is redundant.
Here is the broader npov version: :denotes that the origins of a product are publicly accessible in part or in whole
:--- 20:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Saying source code, design documents, or origins is redundant, yes, but also makes it clearer. It s not POV, it s general usage. Source code is the meaning 99.9% of the time, so it should be mentioned early. Where as origins is overly broad and ambiguous. (Are the origins of Linux in Finland) Also the npov version is inaccurate. The source code (or origins ) does not need to be publicly accessible. Under GPL, for example, they only need to be offered with the software to the recipient of that software and no one else. So in summary: # The current npov version is inaccurate # There is no harm in redundancy for the sake of clarity. # Origins is not a common term and would need to be clarified anyway.
I quite like DavidCary s version also. The ability to improve (as well as study, modify and redistribute) are what make something open source. It s not so much about the public having access to the source/ origins , as being legally able to use them.
In a perhaps related note, I really think the open source article should be moved to open source software and a separate open source or open source concept page should be made to describe the 0.1% of other uses. I don t need to click what links here to know the vast majority of links to open source are from articles describing software.
— 03:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I ve also remarked that there should be two articles: open source and open-source software . Perens wasn t able to patent the term, which suggest the term was widely in use otherwise. In fact, in the [http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html annoucement by Raymond], there is mention of another kind of open source, which is open-source intelligence, or OSINT. That kind of open source is not about improvement of the product, but is about distribution, unclassification, make information non-secret, share trade source between governments, and the access to that information. This is why we have come to use publically accessible, as it fits both the software and the intelligence areas of open source. If you take a look at [http://www.oss.net/extra/page/action=page_show&id=290&module_instance=1 the about page as OSS.NET], you ll notice some links about the history of open-source intelligence. There you ll see that open source doesn t mean just software 99.9% of the time since 1992.
We can improve computer programs without its sources. It is easier with the sources. Essentially, all computer programs are distributed with source code, which could be the machine instructions. Not all programs start from machine code, as they are compiled from another program language. There is why we use the term origins instead of just source code. I m sure a discussion of these issues are worthy for the main article.
--- 20:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
keeps removing the following sentence from the introduction:
:The term was coined in 1998 as a new label for free software.
His latest reversion was justified by saying that this is discussed in a more npov way in the Terminology section. I don t think this is reasonable.
First of all, the term open source (at least, in its application to software as described in the article) was self-consciously coined as a replacement for free software by Raymond et al.—this seems an indisputable fact[http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html], and as such can hardly be POV .
Second, the introduction should be a brief summary of the article, and is redundant almost by definition. The question of what should go into the introduction is determined by what is most important (see Inverted pyramid). How the usage in question was coined, and its close relationship to free software, are hard to dispute as among the most important things to know about the term.
21:46, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
I moved the disucssion around a bit to bring to same debate together. Please look at my response just before yours, Stevenj. You ll notice that I added facts that open source is known to have ground elsewhere besides software. An article that specifically presents only open-source software is worthy of such sentence in the opener (or lead section). It appears there is confusion between the introductory sentence of a paragraph and the introduction as in the opener (or lead section). The insert of the sentence is welcomed if you can correct the syntax. It doesn t make a good instroduction for that paragraph that gives an exmaple of what makes software open source. It would make a good introduction sentence for a paragraph about how the label came about in 1998 from the strategy session, and that exists in Terminology. We also need the lead section for this open source article to handle any history of open source like OSINT. There is no need for the article open source to be dominated by open-source software only.
--- 22:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I split the article into 23:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC) :Great! I m sure the debates will still continue, but thank you. — 00:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC) :Also there s now 1500+ articles that link to 01:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC) ::I ve noticed many links with 02:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
= Divisions of Open Source =
I ve just recategorised the open source (disambiguation) page to try and get a grasp on the different areas covered by the term open source and what should go in an open source article. I ve come up with the following areas: # Products (software, hardware, music, documentation) # Licensing # Society and culture (community) # Processes (development model, comittees, goverance) # Intelligence The first 4 are related: Open source software is licensed with an open source license, developed with an open source development model by members of the open source community, and that s all very smurfy. The term open source has then broadened in the areas of processes, products and possibly licenses. Comittees that are unrelated to open source software may use an open source model. Similiarly there are more products than just software that have become open source (eg hardware), by using its licenses, or new ones that fit better (like creative commons for music). So a good open source article should cover all these points including the broadened meanings of open source when relating to processes and products. The current article does not give much treatment to products, and still focuses mainly on software (understandably, considering its fresh split from open-source software ).
Open Source Intelligence is not a related term (as also stated in its article), and should not be included in an open source article except as a disambiguation notice.
I hope this gives some guidance to anyone crazy enough to try cleaning up this mess.
As a side note, I d like to stress again that the source code does not need to be publicly accessible in open source software. Under GPL, for example, the source code only needs to be offered with the software to the recipient of that software and to no one else. The source code typically is publicly accessible, which is culturally important, but not a strict part of open source.
— 02:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I ll have to repost my suggested outline, as something happen to when I saved it -- it didn t. Until then, I haven t seen any argument to why OSINT should be excluded, and I ll change the opener to reflect it so that it is not based so heavily on open-source software, which there is an article open-source software for such information. Here is the version now:
:Open source denotes a product (typically software) whose source or design is open for modification and redistribution; a license used to give such permission; a Radical transparency procedure or process; or that which relates to open source (especially to open-source software) such as the open source movement and culture. :The advantage of open source is to let the product be more understandable, modifiable, duplicatable, or simply accessible. Software developers publish their software product as open source so anybody may also develop the same software or understand how it works. Open-source software generally allows anybody to make a new version of the software, port it to new operating systems and processor architectures, share it with others or market it. :Information agencies make their products, usually a collection of information, as open source when they translate the informational text to different languages, which makes it more accessible to a larger audience.
Open source is the same as accessible origins, but the later is not as catchy as the former. It doesn t need to be any more complex than that.
--- 04:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
:It is more complex than that. In software, Open source is a technical term with a specific meaning that is more specific than just accessible origins . All other meanings, except for open source intelligence stem from (or broaden) that specific, technical meaning, or come from the culture around it.
:Open source intelligence uses different meanings of both open and source . In OSINT: open means available to the public and permission to make derivate works is irrelevant, in OSS it means available to the recipient of the product with explicit permission to make derivative works. In OSINT source means source of information , in OSS it means source code . OSINT does not prescribe a license or licenses. OSS does. Further, OSS and OSINT were neither derived from the other nor inspired by the other. They are different things, common in name only! Putting them together requires forcing a square peg into a round hole. — 05:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
= Open source does not mean Publicly Accesible =
I d like to stress again (again) that the source code does not need to be publicly accessible in open source software. Under GPL, for example, the source code only needs to be offered with the software to the recipient of that software and to no one else. The source code typically is publicly accessible, which is culturally important, but not a strict part of open source.
Mr. Ballard, please stop reverting the article to say otherwise. If you don t understand, see the The Desert Island test and The Dissident test in Debian Free Software Guidelines for examples of how open source software (or free software) does not need to be publicly accessible. The same applies to other open source and open content licenses.
If you wish to make improvements to the article, work with what is there and improve it. Do not try to bulldoze it down for when you re ready to work on it.
Open source in the sense of open source intelligence is the only sense where this does not apply.
— 01:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. I typed a long explaination, but it didn t save. What we need to see is your sources of information for why you think open source means the way you understand it. From what I see so far, you stress the open source begins and revolves around open-source software. That is not true. Open source type products started way before the words were suggested for use with software in 1998.
Open source means accessible origins. It doesn t have anything with its phrase that limits its means to software or licenses. Those are just products of open source that are also tools of open source to encourage or control open source.
In your examples, I see you refer to the debian guidlines and the GPL. That suggests to me that you only want to limit open source to such origin, which is POV since the term open source has beeen used by many other fields besides computer software. I do not agree to limit open source to just software history or to limit its means because OSS is popular and cut out the rest. That would not be encyclopediac.
--- 04:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I must plead ignorance. Other than Open Source Intelligence and possibly open source governance , I have not seen the term used outside of computing, or in ways unrelated to the OSS meaning. The disambiguation page sheds little light, and google won t give anything other than software related links. If there are other meanings that have been in common use, then this article should be moved to open source (computing), and the 1500+ articles that link to open source from software and OSS culture articles should be changed to open source (computing) .
I d be great if you could write about those other uses, but in the field of computing open source is definitely not synonymous with publicly accesible .
Also you talk about open source as a thing (noun), rather than like an adjective. Can you expand on that too. What is open source Thanks.
— 07:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Consider the the computer field is dominated by software, that is the reason why OSS appears the best known within the computer field and about open source. However, it is just the most popular at the moment since its movement is strong with software. We don t need an open source (computing) page.
Also consider the parrelism between Netscape (a web browser), open source (the software of the browser), and the Internet (or , the world wide web) all suddenly became mainstream between 1995 and 2000. A lot of people want to believe the Internet started at 1995, and they haven t known anything else. That is like how you stated you haven t known elsewise, so I wonder if your of that crowd Have you even studied the open source pragmatism well before 1995 -- even well before the event of the famous Internet (UUCP) worm Well, wikipedia is very advanced with more information than a hardback encyclopedia, but continues to implore forgiveness for its naiveness. 1998 was the year where many many developers finally decided to follow one set of terminology, open source, instead of tons of unique terms and phrases coined by the best hacker communities that weren t ever widely accepted. More later... I want to put some history of it into the open source article, where it doesn t really fit open-source software as we known now (as you, Pengo, write about very well).
--- 14:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Advocates of closed source argue that since no one is responsible for
open-source software, there is no way to know whether it has been
> fixed.
What if there IS a single company/organization/person responsible for the open-source software Like Firefox for example.
= Coinage of the term =
There are references to Open Source (as in software) at least as early as 1994 according to google groups, the way the article is written makes it sound like the term was just invented in 1998, rather than simply adopted from a set of already used terms. 17:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
:There is much confusion between open source and the more specific open-source software. When the this article was heavy on open-source software, its main date centered on 1998. I seperated out the specific on october 11th cut out much and without discussion, which took out some key points. It be good to have a few of those google group links for historical reasons.
:: I removed the software specific parts because those parts are already linked to through the open source software link. I have marked the starting paragraph with the 1990s a couple times as the origins of the term open source with relation to software because of this earlier usage of the term. 17:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
= Technical limitation tag =
How exactly is the failure of the title to use a lowercase open source a technical limitation It isn t a word that s always spelled starting with a lowercase letter, like eBay . 21:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
:agreed -- tag removed ---- 22:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
:: Perhaps, but it is open source, and without being sure people notice this they will make assumptions based on Open Source, which is the term used by the OSI to describe their counter to the FSF s Free Software. I ll reremove it based on your opinions though I feel that I ll have to expand the article to mention the difference between Open and open. 17:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
:::There is no trademark on open source or Open Source . There is no difference between the words. ---- 22:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
:::: The lack of trademark is irrelevant, the OSI calls what they like Open Source , while open source is a broader term. One is a specific term used by a specific organisation while the other has a more inclusive meaning. I call that a difference. 22:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
= Recent cut and edit of text =
Janizary made a major cut and edit of the text. I don t quite agree with most of the changes, but I want to work with it. We need to merge some of the details of the previous revision back in. They state examples that make it clear what open source is all about even it is heavily ridden with software issues. I already removed some specific software issues from the split of the article into open source and open-source software. ---- 22:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
== Opener ==
Here is Janizary s latest revision of the opener. I don t agree with it. I have cut it out but left all the other changes Janizary made. I Janizary s didn t improve it.
:Open source is a term that used to describe the concepts of allowing for immediate and open access to the sources of information and data used in the creation and organization of knowledge. Also referred to as open content or free culture, it has been strongly supported by advocates of open-source software. Regarded by some as a philosophy and by others a pragmatic methodology for the development and production of products which promotes the access to their sources in order to expand the product s usefulness.
:Developers and producers used many different phrases or jargon words before the open source label became widely adopted, as the early Internet years provided a rapid convergence of very diverse production models. With the increase of interactive communities and their direct involvement with the Internet, open-source software yielded the most prominent society of open source. Though the Internet started in 1969 with open standards like the Request for Comments, it wasn t until the 1990s that open source became a label to denote to software the same effort which began the Internet. This open source development method allows different agendas and approaches to be used in production and contrasts with more isolated development techniques.
Open source is not a concept, as it is in actual practice. It isn t open content or free culture, as those are derived more directly from the open-source software society. Open source applies more to more than just development, so development methods isn t an improvement over models. There are other issues. I felt we could edit them and argue them here if needed, especially since the previous versions had some major edits without any discussion. ---- 22:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC) : I agree with JhBallards point that open source is not a unique concept. sharing ideas and knowledge has been around since humans have learned to communicate with each other. this is not something that even deserves an article. 05:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
::It is in practice with the proof a concept long past. Anotherwords, it not just a concept. It is real. It is also different than the basic ideas to share knowledge. It has a structured model to follow. You say it s been around for a long time, but why haven t we seen anybody create an Open-Source Vehicle What automanfacture would dare to open source their blueprints for their vehicles to allow any other business to make an engine for their vehicle body It s not just about software. ---- 02:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
= Category =
We need a category for a higher level the 15:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC) :Could there be a catagory for open source and then under that catagory have a link to open-source software to avoid duplication. ---- 13:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC) ::What about 14:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC) :Copyleft refers to open source licenses like the GPL which are viral in nature, they require redistribution of modifications to the source code. Copyleft is open source, but open source is not necessarily copyleft, so such a categorization would be inappropriate. The general category open source sounds fine, that encompasses all licenses. 15:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)|
|