Jump to content

Talk:Free and open-source software/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Free and open-source software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Merging Open Source Software into Free and Open Source Software

I propose to merge Open Source Software into this article. "Open Source" software is yet another name for Free Software. Free and Open Source Software could be the one article to cover the topic (instead of now three) and could also explain all the different names. DCEvoCE (talk) 12:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Support. I see you changed opinion though.--Kozuch (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. It is a bit more than different names. "Free software" implies that it is Open Source AND approved by the Free Software Foundation as "free". For example look at the comment on their own website [1], and also a much stronger comment by Linus who fundamentally does not want to refer to Linux as "Free Software" [2]. The articles need to be kept separated - free software is more of a philosophy/policy based around open source, open source is more of a technical thing.--Sir Anon (talk) 09:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
You wrote that "Free software" would imply that it would have to be Open Source AND approved by the Free Software Foundation as "free". That is not the case. Free software is software that is licensed under a(ny) free software license that do provide you with the four freedoms of free software, such as the GPL. "Open source" is just another word or label for free software. DCEvoCE (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
The difference of FOSS and Open Source is in the detail. So it should not be merged. There are many special cases of opens source like FOSS, but including all into one article will increase open source to one article with to many sections. FOSS is now poorly written and many details missing. Abreviation FOSS is used different. Neutral for a synonym, like Open Source. As a key word for an aggreement (special rules different to Open Source and GPL) which tried the writer to express in a not good style (ad). Do not merge, article needs repair. Dieter --62.158.109.141 (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
DCEvoCE - as you said, "Open source" is just one of the criteria of "Free software". The articles as they are do need clarification on this and a clean up, but a merge is unjustified.--Sir Anon (talk) 05:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. This has been a long time coming. We have far too many overlapping articles on free software already, and consolidation is a good idea. There is insufficient concrete difference between the terms to warrant so many separate articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, per Dieter, Mion (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Cant see "Dieter" anywhere near here.--Kozuch (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose FOSS is quite different than either free or pure open source. RedChihuahua (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Support these mergers have to fairly note the differences, but having three or more articles on each area of the FOSS movement is ridiculous, as well as being confusing to the typical Wikipedia reader. Most people find the distinctions minimal. Lentower (talk) 04:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose There is a massive diffrence between free and open source software. IE is free but it will never be open souce. Spudinator (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
IE is a freeware, but definitelly not a free software.--Kozuch (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Many people call "freeware" (gratis software) -> "free software"... in fact, freeware is just free+software (yeah, I know quite well the diference, I just think the definition of "free software" should not be dicated by the FSF). Freedom means different things for different people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.113.223 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 25 January 2009
Unless something has changed, IE is not even freeware: you must own a Windows license to have a right to use it. --AVRS (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. Clarified the distinction in the fourth paragraph, beginning "Today the terms...". As more background, Stallman created "free software", Raymond and friends created "open source", business created "commercial open source", and the "community" have since reclaimed the common ground from all of the above by putting Stallman and Raymond together by shotgun marriage with common use of "free [libre] open source software". See para 4 of article for more. Reliablesources 19:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC) 19:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
oppose - there is already a detailed, referenced article for the various alternative terms that were later tacked onto free software, it's at: alternative terms for free software. Gronky (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Comment: The article Community distribution has been nominated for deletion via WP:PROD. Editors of this article might want to consider merging it too or making it a redirect. It currently consists of 3 paragraphs and 2 lists. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
oppose Per above, two distinctly different topics. They both stand fine on their own. 128.113.228.19 (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose The original proposal ignores the history behind the open source and free software distinction. In order for software to be free, it's source must be open. So, open source can either refer to free software or to non-free software with open source code, chromium and android being the most notable examples of the latter. A more reasonable proposal would be to merge free software with FOSS, because free software is a subset of open source software, FOSS is simply free software. --TZubiri (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Some open source software could have a license that doesn't allow redistribution of it, while giving away the right to obtain and copy the source code, making it non-free software, as it doesn't support the four essential freedoms. Iofr (talk) 10:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Open-source software cannot have a license that doesn't allow redistribution of it. That would violate the open source definition (free redistribution is the first criterion in the open source definition). It is true that open-source software is almost the same group of software as free software (it literally started just as another name for free software, and the open source definition says basically the same things as the four freedoms in the free software definition), but of course the articles should not be merged.—J. M. (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Misc.

You should choose a new screenshot image, there's a typo in it (calander > calendar). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.53.139 (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Free and open-source software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Considering adding a paragraph "critique" from the Journal of Peer Production

To the people watching this article,

After having read this paper by Christopher Kelty (the anthropologist of software) that happens to be a scientific publication published under a "public domain" licensing policy, I consider adding a paragraph "critique" (or whatever more appropriate term anyone may see fit) by basically extracting whole chunks of his article (namely paragraphs 13 to 16), as I believe it provides a sound account of why FOSS in the 2010s may be viewed as irreconciliable. Of course it would need work to achieve "encyclopedic tone" and NPOV, but I do believe that it is here a rare instance where it would be both relevant and not a copyvio to import a text instead of paraphrasing summarizing or even merely quoting it. Before I actually try to do it, I'm asking the opinion of anyone interested. --Alexandre Hocquet (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Free and open-source software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

not NPOV/original research

these statements are not NPOV and/or constitute original research:

By defying ownership regulations in the construction and use of information − a key area of contemporary growth − the Free/Open Source Software (FOSS) movement counters neoliberalism and privatization in general.[97]

By realizing the historical potential of an "economy of abundance" for the new digital world FOSS may lay down a plan for political resistance or show the way towards a potential transformation of capitalism.[97]

seems fine to attribute statements like this to third parties, but as written they look like statements of fact, when they are opinions/analysis that emerge from the page authors. They should either be referred to via quotations from third parties, or removed. there are other statements of this sort on this page that have similar problems. Mr H3vnu83987 (talk) 13:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

how is "Infringes on user's civil liberties and human rights" a drawback of FOSS to proprietary software?

this may be a problem with my understanding of english language, which is not my mother tongue. all the paragraphs in "drawback to proprietary software" describe disadvantages of FOSS compared to proprietary software.

Security and user-support, Hardware and software compatibility, Bugs and missing features, Less guarantees of development, Missing applications, Technical skills and user-friendliness all list things where FOSS is at a disadvantage.

as a result, it looks like the phrase "Infringes on user's civil liberties and human rights" is also talking about a disadvantage of FOSS compared to proprietary software, as in "FOSS would infringe on users rights" whereas proprietary software would not. a careful reading of that paragraph makes clear that this is not the case. the paragraph is instead talking about a disadvantage of proprietary software, and an advantage of FOSS.

given that all other paragraphs in this section are about FOSS disadvantages, i feel that this paragraph about human rights is better placed in the section above as an advantage of FOSS.

i found this issue because i had asked my team to research FOSS so they could learn about it, and when i asked them "what are the disadvantages of FOSS" they came back with the answer that FOSS infringes on human rights. 61.187.123.141 (talk) 06:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the contradictory section. The editor who put it in probably misinterpreted the "Drawbacks to proprietary software" section as "Drawbacks of proprietary software". In any case, the content is already covered at Free and open-source software § Personal control, customizability and freedom. Thanks for bringing up this issue! — Newslinger talk 16:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Major contradiction between GPL'd software being linked here as FOSS and the opening sentence

"Free and open-source software (FOSS) is software that is both free software and open-source software[a] where anyone is freely licensed to use, copy, study, and change the software in any way" -- The GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) does not freely allow one to use the software in any way, as it prohibits not only using it in proprietary software, but prohibits any changes or additions you make from being used in proprietary software. So it even prohibits your changes from "being used in any way." There are GNU GPL'd pieces of software all over Wikipedia that are linked to this article in their opening sentence. They should either all be removed as being "free and open source," or this article should be modified to state that FOSS can cover both "free in any way," and, "not free in every way" licenses. 2601:18B:8200:3AE:5170:1738:CC62:F931 (talk) 10:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

FOSS has a definition. If the software that links to this page is saying they are FOSS and they are not, then the edits need to go into those articles, not this one. GimliDotNet (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
But Wikipedia's definition is sourced back to the GNU Project, which does not actually support that "in any way" includes using it in proprietary software. The site referenced doesn't even use the words "in any way" (though they do use "for any purpose") but as this use is meta (it is not a use of the output of the program but instead wraps the software up in a conceptual package and uses that) this purpose isn't necessarily being included by the reference source. So it isn't necessarily defined by the absolutes of |in any way| or |for any purpose|; and so, for example, banning its use in murder may not conflict with it being "free." The wording of the definition as it stands right now reads as an absolute, though; so we have, "If it isn't permissible to use it in murder it is not Free and Open Source Software." So perhaps it needs to be more accurately defined to include what freedoms can be disallowed while still being considered, "Free." Basically, the underlying issue is the philosophical one of: "An absolute 'free' is paradoxical, for it must contain the freedom to contradict itself." 2601:18B:8200:3AE:7936:B754:B35A:FB0F (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Free_and_open-source_software/Archive_2&oldid=1285605239"