Talk:Open-source model/Archive 1

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

Archive 3

Merge Open Source ethics

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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 April 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

Latest comment: 18 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion

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, 26 April 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 July 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, 22 October 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 January 2004 (UTC)

That's because it's used without the hyphen as a noun and with it as an adjective. --Shallot 13:51, 2 January 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 January 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 January 2004 (UTC)

Read above, the sections starting with 131.183.81.100 22:18, 26 April 2003 (UTC) and ending with Delirium 10:25, 22 October 2003 (UTC). Brendan Hide 18:56, 13 November 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 June 2005 (UTC)

Stallman

Latest comment: 20 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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 October 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, 20 October 2003 (UTC)

I like it now a whole lot better. Bevo 03:22, 20 October 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

Latest comment: 20 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 2004 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Should the article still be flagged for rewording concerning NPOV? Brendan Hide 18:56, 13 November 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 November 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 November 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 November 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 November 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

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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 December 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

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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, 7 January 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 January 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, 7 January 2005 (UTC)

Open Gaming License

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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 March 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, 26 March 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

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 April 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 November 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 April 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?

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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, 5 June 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 June 2005 (UTC)

Redirect?

Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

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 April 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 April 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 April 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, 29 April 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 April 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)

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

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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? Mr. Ballard 02:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

OpenSource logo

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

does anyone know when is the logo inargurated? Xah Lee 09:17, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

M

Are the Internet standards Open Source?

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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? DirkvdM 13:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

See Open standards. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 14:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The IETF the Internet standards are Open standards. They are not Open source. (Does this article need to explain the difference ?). --DavidCary 10:37, 8 June 2005 (UTC)

I would want to think that something like ICANN is an Open standard but is a form of Open Source governance but still I see a tendancy to tack on open standards to closed government systems too much.

Open Source damaging to commercial market

Latest comment: 19 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion

Beachy wrote " antroduction 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. DirkvdM 08:48, 21 May 2005 (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 complement goods. I wonder if the same people would also complain about Gillette who famously give away the razors and sell the blades. With all due sympathy for the people who find themselves on the losing side in this development, I agree these are just people complaining about competition from a legal, unsubsidized business model. Welcome to free markets. Rl 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? --Beachy 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. -- Wapcaplet 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. Rl 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? DirkvdM 08:07, 24 May 2005 (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. Rl 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 Firefox come from? It partially came about as a response to IE's dominance and fat-happy behavior of MS in not enhancing IE for a long period of time. It's certainly arguable, however, that MS removed the incentive for most commercial entities to enter or stay in the market with their proprietary browsers, with the exception of Opera. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 21:42, 4 June 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). -- Wapcaplet 23:15, 4 June 2005 (UTC)

Where "free as in beer" = gratis and "free as in speech" = libre. :) — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 00:01, 5 June 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. --Beachy 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. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 21:42, 4 June 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. Rl 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. --Beachy 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. DirkvdM 08:07, 24 May 2005 (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. -- Wapcaplet 23:14, 4 June 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

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For more information, see: User:Ambush Commander/LinkFix dump

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. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 17:02, 14 August 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

Latest comment: 18 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

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" 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?) --DavidCary 19:42, 6 June 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. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 20:03, 6 June 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. Mr. Ballard 20:42, 11 June 2005 (UTC)

Would you agree that "open source hardware" is one kind of all "open source" stuff ? --DavidCary 10:37, 8 June 2005 (UTC)

I tried making changes to the opening paragraph also, and they were reverted by Jhballard. I'm moving the conversation here from Open source (disambiguation). 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

--- Mr. Ballard 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.

—Pengo 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 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 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.

--- Mr. Ballard 20:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

jhballard 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[3], 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.

—Steven G. Johnson 21:46, 27 August 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.

--- Mr. Ballard 22:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I split the article into open source and open-source software. This should make things easier between the two. --- Mr. Ballard 23:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Great! I'm sure the debates will still continue, but thank you. —Pengo 00:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Also there's now 1500+ articles that link to open source that should almost all be linking to open-source software. Rather than fix all the links individually (and continue fixing links as future articles link to open source instead of open-source software), could we make "open source" be a redirect to "open source software" and rename the plain open source page to "open source (concept)" or similiar? (everything with apropriate disambiguation notices of course). "(concept)" doesn't sound great, so any other suggestions/comments? What actually unites the different meanings of "open source"? They seem quite distinct. Perhaps just using open source (disambiguation) would be better? —Pengo 01:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed many links with open-source software instead of open source, so I wasn't worried to go fix those links that pointed to open source when it should have linked to open-source software. It'll work out without any need to redirect open source. --- Mr. Ballard 02:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Divisions of Open Source

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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.

—Pengo 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 radically transparent 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.

--- Mr. Ballard 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. —Pengo 05:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

"Open source" does not mean "Publicly Accesible"

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

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.

—Pengo 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.

--- Mr. Ballard 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.

—Pengo 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).

--- Mr. Ballard 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

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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. Nathan J. Yoder 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 open-source software in order to focus on open source besides just software. It needed to be reworked, but the edit by user:janizary 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. Janizary 17:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Technical limitation tag

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

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". Ken Arromdee 21:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

agreed -- tag removed ---- Mr. Ballard 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. Janizary 17:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no trademark on "open source" or "Open Source". There is no difference between the words. ---- Mr. Ballard 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. Janizary 22:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Recent cut and edit of text

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

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. ---- Mr. Ballard 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 RFCs, 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. ---- Mr. Ballard 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. Fsdfs 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. ---- Mr. Ballard 02:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to suggest adding to the intro that it's not just a production standard but also a consumer right to own completley what they purchase with no strings attached to a cetain degreee of reality of course hence free software. The whole point of the movement is to ensure when you purchase the product with money or not that you actually own it and have full rights to use it the way you see fit. Also this is not public or completely communist where the owner looses his designs. Yes he must share BUT it states in the GNU that you cannot copy or pretend that the original software is yours if you modify or resell. So your specs are out there but you own the original design concept whuile the consumer owns the product. These Open source people consider this fair and reasonable. -anon1

This article sucks

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Come on, it's been over 4 years that this project has used the Gnu/Linux operationg system (which is free software), and we can't even apply NPOV to describing the difference betwee free software and open source software?

Forget about which philosophy is "right". Just tell us readers what the differences are between them!

Stallman and his gang want credit for what the did. Whether you think the deserve it or not, it's what they want. So just say that RMS claims to be the granddaddy of sharable software and that he says that his movement did most or nearly all of the work that made it possible for Torvalds to develop Linux.

And anyone else who claims anything different can get their say, too. Uncle Ed 21:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Really people, this shouldn't be that hard. If you really feel you are right, then just tell the straight facts and let the reader make up their mind. If you're so right, they'll obviously agree with you. --Lewk_of_Serthic 21:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually RMS created the whole thing, he is the mastermind behind it all. Frap 15:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Open content

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Should this page link to Open content? If it does, please link to it! Frap 15:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms of Open Source

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Should this article contain any dialogue regarding the criticisms of the Open Source concept? One example that springs to mind is Blender; the interface dictated that it was commercially unsuccesful, however, after being expanded upon by open-source development, the resultant software is still plagued by poor interface design that frustrates users, making it difficult to use the powerful software behind the interface.

Other problems worth noting could be the lack of documentation surrounding active development that makes it difficult to utilize a product to its full potential.

Perhaps this has already been mentioned, or there is a better forum for bringing it up; I myself am not well-versed or articulate enough to express a significant or valuable dialogue on the topic - I am merely aware that such criticisms exist and perhaps should be acknowledged. - 24.67.20.3

Sounds more like an open-source software related issue. — Dzonatas 05:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Reverted edits to government section

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just reverted an edit by 24.13.183.187 that added the following text to the government section:

Usually these groups are considered non-profit or non-governmental meaning: not linked to a government or it’s billing system or at least in the most minimal amount of way, as most groups ask for donations. Organizations or ‘Orgs’ seem to create a more direct environment of debate and action on a more more individual-specialized basis and are usually, if even more tightly linked to the environments they represent. Example the Electronic Frontier Foundation which is mostly connected to North American Internet or digital interests while The Open Rights Group is more connected to Europe but offers similar services. One of the earliest and most popular Blogs on the Internet, The Whatever, uses an EFF logo on his site to help promote and protect blogger’s rights. EFF also uses and consults with lawyers.

That didn't seem appropriate, consistent, etc. for the gov. section. Joseph Lorenzo Hall 17:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Why not appropriate? The whole point of Open Source government is to not be encumbered by a closed group or governments and policies. The groups I mention are completely open and modeled on an open standard. Why does Open source only have to be involved with semi-closed governments like The U.S. and European Union for instance? I don't consider governments who tax 'Open source.' Am I wrong? Open software doesn't tax. Also Open Source Government is merit based and not based completely on one political style. Also EFF was deleted, this is a prime example of a fully Non-Profit Open source governing body or ‘watchdog’ group, rather then a closed government using open source methods only. I'm very surprised someone would just go in there and delete all references to EFF. Before someone does major deletes they should talk about it. -anon1

revert edits to history section

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just reverted edits by 12.147.6.123 that added (amongst other things):

Since the dawn of man and its economic system most products and government systems were developed and maintained in a somewhat open source manner to a certain extent though when disruptions in the supply chain occur. Open source methods were always pursued as a means to an end for the furtherance and goodwill for that generation and generations to follow so society could generally get along and produced what was needed at any given moment rather then have a 'locked in' limitation that might threaten an ecosystem's survival. This was especially true in the case before major advances in technology and the Internet where most societies were very isolated from their outside worlds and had access to a limited source of substance so interacting with an outside resource in an uninhibited ‘open’ way was vital.

Today in the Post Industrial Information age allot of that has changed but certain foundational elements remain true. Now even more open methods of transaction can occur almost completely bereft of any outside influence or impediment over the Internet and other automobile tech. Also with this new environment come certain negative reaction of demanded control over the ecosystem though things like Vendor Lock In and extreme private ‘closed’ systems or even a too public system that many Open Source advocates call unfair and unrealistic to the betterment of society as a whole. Open source does not necessarily mean completely public as too much of a public system can take away the original creator of the products rights thus the Creative Commons provides a separate contract where certain rights are reserved. Open source tries to achieve a comfortable balance between private and public systems so as not to hold on to one politically ideology too much over another like communism vs capitalism.

this doesn't improve the article much, no? -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall 21:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I just tacked that on becase there were only references to software. Probably too much. -anon1

Where is the discussion about splitting OS and OSS articles?

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Can anyone point me to where the discussion which lead to "open-source software" being split into a seperate article took place? I've looked a few times, but I can't find it. Thanks. Gronky 16:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you propose? The conversation is above, in and about the intro paragraph and divisions of open source. — Dzonatas 20:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. That's a surprisingly sparse conversation. The first use of the word "split" on this page is in a sentence "I split the article". I'm not convinced the split was a good idea. I'm not proposing anything, but I was just hoping to read what convinced others that it was a good idea. Gronky 12:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Open source vs Public domain

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

After I noticed several attempts to show how open source is equal to some form of community-collaboration, I wonder if it helps to explain the difference between public domain and open source. We have articles for open source vs. free software and open source vs. closed source, which are mainly software based. Public domain is kind-of a usage license itself, while open source does not imply such a specific usage license. — Dzonatas 20:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Public Domain seems similar, as the original author still has rights but doesn't control the work completley. I am not toatally sure. To me Open Source standards seem better because they are not linked to any one government to add to the confusion. -anon1

Link Spamming

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

This article seems to attract an inordinate share of links to various bloggers' opinions and tiny websites looking for publicity. Is there a consensus on what's worth keeping in the External Links section?Elijahmeeks 16:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There are those that are open source related and may at least extend the knowledge about open source itself. Some "action" websites may be appropriate, but we don't want to pick-n-choose favorites. Are there any in particular question that are hard to judge by guideline?

I'm going to continue to yank out any bounty sites, which are just trying to generate traffic. I don't think they're hard to judge, I just wanted to see if anyone had a good reason not to.Elijahmeeks 00:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking over the history, the two sites in "question" are actually well-known OSS sites. I believe both of them have been slashdotted/digged numerous times. Bounty County is a site that maintains aggregate data on the state of various bounties that exist for OSS, while Bounty Source is a free project management (bug tracking, feature requests) site that seems to be a modernized Source Forge... In my opinion both of these sites reflect the OSS community and would benefit someone who wishes to know more about F/OSS.

They don't add any knowledge to the discussion of open-source. They're for finding projects to take part in and they don't even compare to similar but more acknowledged sites like, say, Sourceforge.Elijahmeeks 06:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any other objections here about the links. — Dzonatas 14:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Weasels and weasels and weasels, oh my

Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

"Regarded by some", "was chosen" (by some unspecified group), "many consider" and "many claim", and some critics do something too, etc. Badly needs at least a few attributions and references and suchlike. NicM 08:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC).

The philospohical issues are presented by a few organizations compared to the many people who actually use it in a pragmatic way, like in software development. How would we solve this. I know there are sources, but they don't directly state this kind of comparison. What do you find? We can change these to "there are" forms. Also see open source movement.— Dzonatas 21:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

For organizations, how about representatives of the organizations putting the point of view, and official statements from the organization? It is fine to contrast them: "X says A, but in contrast, Y asserts B". If people really use and discuss this, there will be magazine articles and comments and opinion pieces about it. "There are" is no better, it is still completely unsourced and therefore unverifiable. NicM 23:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC).

I see your point about the representatives. That idea fits within the body while the opener above summarizes it. Before this article was split up, it did contain more of those views. I suggested to merge some of it back in. Also, a quick search on google for "open source" and either "pragmatic" or "philosphical" gives over 14 million hits each. There is quite of bit of talk about it, so it is not completely unsourced. The expressions themselves are verifiable, but the quantifiers need to be sourced. I found the comparisons based on the facts that there are many software developers that work with open-source software even if those developers don't follow the philosophy (i.e. they just restrict themselves to the license). Then there are those that just use open-source products. Since the split, this article now includes more details then just software. What do you propose? — Dzonatas 16:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I propose that the article should be restructured so that every point of view is presented neutrally and preferably attributed to at least one organization or individual, per WP:WEASEL. Verifiable does not mean "the reader can type it into google" it means there are sources listed in the article and each viewpoint has an attribution or explanation of who says it and where it comes from. With 14 million google hits, there should be absolutely no problem finding sources for any viewpoint you care to name. I know this subject is widely discussed on the internet, so there must be tons and tons of material to work with... what about a few Perens or ESR quotes? or from some of the Debian guys? what about Microsoft, what have they said about open source philosophy? I bet they spend a lot of time badmouthing it and saying it is anti-commercial in spirit. IBM and Sun and Apple have all sponsered OSS in one way or another, what did their CEOs say when they made the announcement and their personnel in interviews? All this weasel "often considered" stuff can be fixed easily enough by finding a reputable source which says that and using it, "noted commentator Bob Bobson, writing in Bob's Monthly Magazine, described this event as "the birth of the open source movement."{{ref|Bob}}" NicM 17:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC).

As you seem to agree that there is no problem to find sources, then I object to actually remove content, as it seems understood that sources can be found. Also, some of the text is directly reflected from other articles. To change the text here also means a bigger project to updates those article if they do not have sources. We can work on it. Further, the topics of open source are pretty diverse. See the different aspects presented in the page itself. It doesn't handle just software. The exceptions to use these terms cover the diversity, and not to quantify a particular aspect of open source. The question is not if it can be sourced, but how to make it more verifiably obvious without original research. Nevertheless, this page actually needs more content, like with extra representative's text as you suggest, so I'm glad you can help with that. — Dzonatas 00:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say I wanted to remove content. All I say is that the article needs sources, it does not have them, and that sources on this subject are not hard to find. It doesn't matter what the article is about, how diverse its subject, and how many other articles there are, this one still lacks sources and is full of weasel words. Take a look at WP:CITE, WP:WEASEL and WP:V, and notice how they don't apply to the article. All you need to do is cite sources for all the assertions in the article, so that we all know the author wasn't just making it up, and attribute the points of view to at least one party, so we know the author isn't just trying to make it look like "everyone" shares his POV. NicM 12:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC).

I'm glad that you don't want to remove content, as that was misunderstood. Yes, let's add the sources. — Dzonatas 01:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A tag was placed on the page for clean-up. A specific reason, other then above about sources, is not stated. Any comments on this? — Dzonatas 01:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Would be nice to know what specifically needed to be cleaned. -- Joebeone (Talk) 17:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yoga?

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Strange it is. THat seems more like a candidate for a disambiguation page than the main article. Midgley 22:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to study what makes it "open source." I do agree with you on the dab. — Dzonatas 05:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I looked at it. There is validity to its claim as open source. It's not just an advertisment scheme. — Dzonatas 19:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Template cited?

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Was the citation from "Back to the future: open source everything" in Computerworld really notable? There only seemed to be one part that was really clearly cited, and it was about a template rather than the main article. — Dzonatas 05:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

History

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

With the recent changes to the history section, I decided to hold back on a revert to remove its backward direction. The information added is more useful at Open source software where it can be neutrally written at greater length. Details of software related issues should not be on this page; however, software did play a big role, so it is fine to correlate the actions on this page in regard to "open source." The reason why these pages were split is because of the neutralitt of "open source" itself is affected by OSS. For example, the other non-software issues were not being addressed, or were subjected to constant edits. — Dzonatas 02:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Open-source model/Archive 1

Merge Open Source ethics

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

Licences

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

General

how to use hyphens

Stallman

repositories

NPOV tag

Duplication cost

Wikipedia=perfect example

Open Gaming License

NPOV tag

Time to remove Cleanup tag?

Redirect?

Ownership.

Layout & Content

OpenSource logo

Are the Internet standards Open Source?

Open Source damaging to commercial market

OSI creation & Netscape strategy session

LinkFix Dump

better introduction paragraph

Divisions of Open Source

"Open source" does not mean "Publicly Accesible"

Coinage of the term

Technical limitation tag

Recent cut and edit of text

Opener

Category

This article sucks

Open content

Criticisms of Open Source

Reverted edits to government section

revert edits to history section

Where is the discussion about splitting OS and OSS articles?

Open source vs Public domain

Link Spamming

Weasels and weasels and weasels, oh my

Clean-up

Yoga?

Template cited?

History