![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
It is important to distinguish closed source from proprietary software. The existing text of this topic would fit better under proprietary. The writer assumes closed source is primarily distributed in binary form and that the source is not available.
In looking at all the possible combinations of source availability and distribution methods, there is an important class of software that is best described as closed source.
There is nothing that precludes releasing source code under specific licensing terms. These terms could be restrict or encourage redistribution of the source. In fact, it is likely that distribution of source code instead of binary artifacts is the most efficient and profitable.
As a counter example is generative programming. Systems built with generative programming techniques may be written in languages for which no widely available compiler/interpreter exists. The source for these systems may be made available to users of the software to verify that the intent of the logic, within the context of the language, is correct. Such systems may not even use a language per se (e.g. natural language systems.)
In any case, the tone of the existing text is distinctly open source vs. proprietary and does not make some important distinctions.
I'll try to craft an alternate definition and post it for review.
This article is quite small, and I'm not sure there's much more to say. If it was to be fleshed out, it would basically turn into a duplicate of proprietary software. How about merging it into the proprietary software article? -- Gronky
I disagree about the merge. They are totally different and their articles should remain that way.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rarara77 ( talk • contribs) 2008-08-13.
I disagree with the merge. "closed source" does not necessarily refer to software. Hardware may also be considered "closed source", or any number of layers within hardware design. Only articles using specific term "closed source software" ought to be considered. 67.183.211.201 23:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Aud1073cH
I've recreated this article, with the intention of removing the POV definition, due to the lack of any article on the topic given Proprietary software having long since become a FOSS advocating article. I'd like to address some of the issues brought up in the merge talks to show reasoning for choosing this article name for the concept. I'll go through each comment in the merge one by one and try to counter them.
The discussion went on to mention all the same points I feel I have given fair view points in oppition to. Are there any other objections? - Jimmi Hugh ( talk) 16:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I think this section of the article is terrbile and I think it should be removed or altered:
Of course, the source code for almost all software is available to someone, somewhere under some conditions or for some price so this interpretation would mean that there is practically no such thing as closed source software. For example, the source code to Microsoft Windows is available by simply buying a controlling interest in Microsoft.
So... that's like saying "there are no secrets" - because even most classified documents (CIA/NSA) were written/read by someone. (that's just silly!) I think this is really stretching the definition of open source a lot, especially the part "the source code to Microsoft Windows is available by simply buying a controlling interest in Microsoft." <-- This is just terrible and I can't even describe properly how terribly it is... SF007 ( talk)
This page seems to provide more specificity to the term "closed-source software" then could ever be cited. For instance, the page seems to introduce commentary on the term:
"Ambiguous", according to who?
And this is not even accurate:
Some Shared Source licenses do meet the Open Source definition and the free software definition. -- Ashawley ( talk) 21:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for seconding the motion. I've consequently removed the original research tag on the article. -- Ashawley ( talk) 04:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
This article is currently little more than a dictionary definition, and a dubious one at that. As there does not appear to be reliable evidence that the term "closed source software" is primarily understood to mean something different from "proprietary software", this article is little more than some editor's personal interpretation. I'd appreciate for those editors involved in keeping it that way to provide an update on precisely what they think this article is for and where it's heading. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a good cause to use only copyright for proprietary software. And still include the source code in the package.
I believe a wider perspective would be nice for this article.
I think it would be a useful bonus for the article, but I don't embed it in the article yet since I am unsure how to do it properly.
Jringoot ( talk) 12:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
May be Internet users meet some portion of source code released under an "open-license" like Creative Commons in order to encourage revision and redistribution, but this can also remain a proprietary source code, since the owner of the license can apply specific additional clauses to the licensing terms, so as to reserve to himself the right of switching anytime to a full copyright data protection.By virtue of this point of view, it is still important to continue on distinguishing closed/open software from proprietary/not proprietary ones.
On the other hand, it there exist Internet Web Services that perform like a black-box running a closed software, whose terms of service qualify them as a permanent and free website available for anyone. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
78.14.138.52 (
talk)
22:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
It is important to distinguish closed source from proprietary software. The existing text of this topic would fit better under proprietary. The writer assumes closed source is primarily distributed in binary form and that the source is not available.
In looking at all the possible combinations of source availability and distribution methods, there is an important class of software that is best described as closed source.
There is nothing that precludes releasing source code under specific licensing terms. These terms could be restrict or encourage redistribution of the source. In fact, it is likely that distribution of source code instead of binary artifacts is the most efficient and profitable.
As a counter example is generative programming. Systems built with generative programming techniques may be written in languages for which no widely available compiler/interpreter exists. The source for these systems may be made available to users of the software to verify that the intent of the logic, within the context of the language, is correct. Such systems may not even use a language per se (e.g. natural language systems.)
In any case, the tone of the existing text is distinctly open source vs. proprietary and does not make some important distinctions.
I'll try to craft an alternate definition and post it for review.
This article is quite small, and I'm not sure there's much more to say. If it was to be fleshed out, it would basically turn into a duplicate of proprietary software. How about merging it into the proprietary software article? -- Gronky
I disagree about the merge. They are totally different and their articles should remain that way.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rarara77 ( talk • contribs) 2008-08-13.
I disagree with the merge. "closed source" does not necessarily refer to software. Hardware may also be considered "closed source", or any number of layers within hardware design. Only articles using specific term "closed source software" ought to be considered. 67.183.211.201 23:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Aud1073cH
I've recreated this article, with the intention of removing the POV definition, due to the lack of any article on the topic given Proprietary software having long since become a FOSS advocating article. I'd like to address some of the issues brought up in the merge talks to show reasoning for choosing this article name for the concept. I'll go through each comment in the merge one by one and try to counter them.
The discussion went on to mention all the same points I feel I have given fair view points in oppition to. Are there any other objections? - Jimmi Hugh ( talk) 16:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I think this section of the article is terrbile and I think it should be removed or altered:
Of course, the source code for almost all software is available to someone, somewhere under some conditions or for some price so this interpretation would mean that there is practically no such thing as closed source software. For example, the source code to Microsoft Windows is available by simply buying a controlling interest in Microsoft.
So... that's like saying "there are no secrets" - because even most classified documents (CIA/NSA) were written/read by someone. (that's just silly!) I think this is really stretching the definition of open source a lot, especially the part "the source code to Microsoft Windows is available by simply buying a controlling interest in Microsoft." <-- This is just terrible and I can't even describe properly how terribly it is... SF007 ( talk)
This page seems to provide more specificity to the term "closed-source software" then could ever be cited. For instance, the page seems to introduce commentary on the term:
"Ambiguous", according to who?
And this is not even accurate:
Some Shared Source licenses do meet the Open Source definition and the free software definition. -- Ashawley ( talk) 21:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for seconding the motion. I've consequently removed the original research tag on the article. -- Ashawley ( talk) 04:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
This article is currently little more than a dictionary definition, and a dubious one at that. As there does not appear to be reliable evidence that the term "closed source software" is primarily understood to mean something different from "proprietary software", this article is little more than some editor's personal interpretation. I'd appreciate for those editors involved in keeping it that way to provide an update on precisely what they think this article is for and where it's heading. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a good cause to use only copyright for proprietary software. And still include the source code in the package.
I believe a wider perspective would be nice for this article.
I think it would be a useful bonus for the article, but I don't embed it in the article yet since I am unsure how to do it properly.
Jringoot ( talk) 12:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
May be Internet users meet some portion of source code released under an "open-license" like Creative Commons in order to encourage revision and redistribution, but this can also remain a proprietary source code, since the owner of the license can apply specific additional clauses to the licensing terms, so as to reserve to himself the right of switching anytime to a full copyright data protection.By virtue of this point of view, it is still important to continue on distinguishing closed/open software from proprietary/not proprietary ones.
On the other hand, it there exist Internet Web Services that perform like a black-box running a closed software, whose terms of service qualify them as a permanent and free website available for anyone. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
78.14.138.52 (
talk)
22:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)