![]() | 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 |
"ideological and confrontational connotations of the term free software" is not NPOV, among other errors. Should be "Free Software" with the quotes. Cherlin 20:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a confusion here between what open source and open content is. Open content licensing is not the same as open source licensing, otherwise there wouldn't be Open Content licensing. This distinction was blurred in this article, and I am going to fix that.
If Open Source is the same as Open Content, then why not let's whack the Open Content entry? People like Lawrence Lessig are probably wrong about using Open Content licensing, right? If a revert is done, I do hope that this comment in the talk page is addressed. -- TaranRampersad 00:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
"Very nascent but has huge potential." under Technology section. Very opinionated. Genjix
The opening particularly reads at present like a direct entry into a deep and abstrse argument between people who know everything about the subject already. This doesn't serve the purpose of an encyclopaedia.
I suggest:-
Midgley 10:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment:Article really needs to be expanded to include open source organizations, open source planning, implementation, etc. That or create a category known as "Open Source" and expound upon it from there. There are many things involved in the phrase "open source" that are not even remotely touched upon here. Given the time I may expound upon that myself. Seansquared 11:55, 20 July 2006
Comment: I think the Mandriva Linux screenshot should be removed immediately. For two reasons: (1) It creates confusion between open source and open source software and (2) a screenshot does not sufficiently explain what open source is. It should be moved to the OSS page instead.
i do beleve that the true concept now known as open source was orginally created by ben franklin... with his experiments with lightning.... and the lightning rod...
Someone slapped a mergefrom template at the top of this page with no supporting discussion. I've removed it because it detracts from the article (for the majority of visitors who just came here to read about 'Open source'). And what's more the merge could take place and the contents would be swallowed by this article without it impacting it much, so this page is the wrong place for the label. Much better is to have an ugly label at the top of the other page ( Open implementation). So I've moved it there. Of course you can have it on both, but unless a merge is actaully under active discussion, I think it's a shame to leave it lingering on this more prominent article.
Anyway this is the place for discussion. So discuss! Should there be a seperate Open implementation article? Don't care much either way myself -- Nojer2 09:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Wickethewok User:Wickethewok
OK Wickethewok dropped the merge template from the other page, so I guess that's resolved -- Nojer2 10:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
...and now there is an ugly mergefrom template for an Open source culture merge. At least there is a discussion this time. Go to Talk:Open source culture to talk about resolving this (i.e. decide if we should merge then remove the label, or not merge... and remove the label).
But my feeling is... while that discussion is in progress the label should be removed from this (more important) Open source page anyway, because it detracts. But anyway, the very ugly NPOV label is currently overshadowing it, so maybe it doesn't matter! -- Nojer2 10:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know, she is unique in being an open source fictional character. Should she be listed, and if so, where? 67.10.175.242 02:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi all,
I have not promoted this because I feel that the article still needs some work. Specifically:
Cedars 09:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
There are a lot of pen and paper RPG games and additions to the games recently licensed under GPL, GFDL, CC and most commonly the Open Gaming License. Check out this website: http://www.opengamingfoundation.org
BT: You mean the article on Open gaming? // Brick Thrower 18:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Fellow Wikipedians,
I just read the Open Source entry and was shocked to see what looked like an advertisement for Eric Raymond's book, The Cathedral and the Bazaar on the right hand side. Of course it only links to the gif image of the book cover and that book is a foundational document in the history of open source--still, it felt like a commercial. Am I being too sensitive? It just didn't feel in the tradition of wikipedia to so prominently promote an author that way. Let me know what you think. Domo2700 19:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
dominick
Why was Mandriva Linux being the "screenshot" for Open Source? It is not one of the most notable open source projects, and I think it includes non-OSS. Removed for now. Foolswisdom 19:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing negative to say about open source? -- Mikeblas 02:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Lack of negativity does not make an article POV. I'm removing the NPOV tag. Please feel free to add criticisms to think article though. — Pengo talk · contribs 12:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Besides, the article already has criticism of open source: — Pengo talk · contribs
I added the NPOV tag back again. Clearly, since there is this much discussion, the article does not meet WP:NPOV guidelines. (See WP:NPOV_dispute for what qualifies: "Note, however, that there is a strong inductive argument that, if a page is in an NPOV dispute, it very probably is not neutral.") There is a pejorative tone taken vis a vis free software, and in fact the whole controversy of the free vs. open source software movements is only touched on. In addition, there's nothing of all the studies Microsoft has conducted, whether or not those studies themselves be neutral. Finally, there is no argument about the legal minefield that is open source licensing and the restrictions it has; take a look at debian-legal if you want examples. I'm not trolling, I write open source software myself, but I agree with the other posters. -- Chris Pickett 03:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
how far are we on the issue? IMHO this is an important article, and I would love to see the NPOV/balance tag removed. What exectly are the points that need to be adressed before this would become NPOV again? We should be able to find out what needs work, and consequently edit it so that it is acceptable to all. To start out with, where are those Microsoft papers? i'll have a looksee if I can fit them in myself. Martijn Hoekstra 01:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
First, it would be absurd to require a criticism of everything, including biographies. But when there are criticisms that are held by an appreciable contingent (and don't ask me to define what is "appreciable" or "significant" or whatever other term you think applies), then that criticism should be included. Here, I can think of two criticisms or concerns that are pretty widely held. 1) The concern that some "Open Source" could include some code that violates a patent and 2) that the term "open source" software is a misnomer, and should not be confused with "free software" (which in turn should not be confused with "for free" software), as per Richard Stallman's argument here [3]. Josh.anders 00:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest that anyone who has something negative to add concerning Open Source or an argument against it should roll up their sleeves and ADD it to the article. You're more than welcome to. If there is a rash of deletions and whatnot of said criticisms, then perhaps this could be considered NPOV. As it is, you're asking people to write about a side of the matter they know little about. Just because there is information missing from an article doesn't mean there's been a deliberate attempt to censor that information. NPOV tags should be reserved for articles that show DELIBERATE attempts to silence either side of an issue. Stop complaining and write a section of criticisms yourself if you're so adamant about it. Wellesradio 21:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Wellesradio
The development of early operating systems and utilites was from code freely shared between vendors and their customers. Note the IBM 701 user group, SHARE. That beginning, and why it went away, should be included in this article. 69.106.232.37 16:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this article misses the point of a process that has been going on for a very long time. The direct ancestors of GNU certainly started with things like the BSD release from Berkeley. All DARPA and government funded projects required that non-classified software be freely available to the public. All that was required was the cost of the tape for duplication.
The Ingres project at Berkeley was funded by the Census Department to process the 1970 census data. Mike Stonebraker brought in the first Unix system outside of Bell Labs into Berkeley and made copies of Ingres available to anyone, but sent them primarily to other universities. Unix then became the primary operating system at Berkeley and releases were sent out under the same rules, which ultimately became the BSD distribution and included that original Ingres system. Bill Joy was the person primarily responsible for assembling this release. Once the internet really started going beyond uucp and dial-up connections, distributions became completely electronic and totally free.
Linux, GNU and the whole open source movement owe far more to these early steps toward free and open software distribution than what is described here. Even the BSD licensing concepts were influential in the development of open source licenses.
-- Johnnewton 09:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
It should somehow be possible to organize an open source translation project – i.e. "Open Translation" for poems, songs etc.
When reading poetical translations made mainly by more or less know poets, I think one often has better ideas for certain verses or images that the poet tried to recreate in the target language – whereas for some verses he may have found English verses that are hard to improve.
Thus if many people work on trying to provide "the perfect" translation of say
Der Erlkönig by not removing other ideas/text but just adding their own it should be much more likely to exhaust what the language has to offer.
I think it’s not easy to find a good organizational pattern for such a project but that's not different with
Open music.
Sincerely,
Christian Storm
14:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The link to "Open Source Learning Project" (under Society and Culture - Education) does not work. It links to a WikiBooks page, which says "the requested page title was invalid, empty, or incorrectly linked."
Isn't Wikipedia the most splendid example of aplying the open source concept. How can we even think of claiming that an article about open source is even a decent article, much less a high quality article when we don't even mention this. Can I even believe that somebody who writes an article on Wikipedia about open source knows what he is talking about when he-she is not aware that every chararcter written is an open source action.
This is not the Encyclopedia Britannica, this is Wikipedia. And this is open source and we should let everybody be aware that we know what we are doing.
Afil 16:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm new here -- be nice!
Ironically, I came to this page to learn more about open source. Learn by doing, I guess. Somebody help me out with this quote from the page:
'"Open source" as applied to culture defines a culture in which fixations are made generally available. Participants in such a culture are able to modify those products and redistribute them back into the community.'
"fixations"??? I don't get it. The link doesn't clarify things either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Junglebike ( talk • contribs) 23:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
It is part of the new age art culture. Don't quote me on that, but that is where you want look to research it for where the word is used more. For example, where you have several teams of people paint a single picture, it becomes a fixation. 23:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.176.177 ( talk)
The title says what i wanted to say ;)
eg: 50 Open Source success stories in Business, Education, and Government Comedies of Fair U$e blog Microsoft Open Specification Promise
Open Source covers a vast array of applications. Having a lot of good external links is important. Which external links, in particular, do you find useless? Please list at least some of them, instead of making the vague statement "Too many useless external links".
Currently looks like it was a bunch of articles merged together (I don't know if it was but it looks like it), has poor flow and structure. Horrible lists, generally poorly cited, overcomplex language, some bits that read like OR. Badly needs cleanup. NicM 19:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
I'd argue that community open source and commercial open source are two quite different variants of open source. Some might even dispute that commercial open source has something to do with (the original spirit of) open source at all. I suggest whoever is going to do the cleanup adds this distinction to the article. Dirk Riehle 21:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Could someone explain the difference and appropriate uses of each? Philipolson 16:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Although the Snow Crash entry is interesting, I don't see why it would be added to this article, so I undid the edit. -- Unixguy 15:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
How does the "Hill of Crosses" Have anythingto do with open source? Motor.on 20:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
This article is full of missing images, unordered content, messy presentation, and more. We need to get this cleaned up!
Run an enterprise in an open source approach
I suggest that the term open source and in particular the conceptional approach behind should be decoupled from software or product development? The term might be grown up in that area but the concept as such seems to be universal and more and more valuable/important in an increasing global and globally integrated enterprise.
Would “open source enterprise” the right title for an enterprise that is run and developed in accordance to an open source approach?
I am not talking about an enterprise who utilizes open source software or a company who develops products in accordance to an open source approach. I suggest a legal, profitable self sustain enterprise that is truly open in almost all aspects. That means that everybody can join in to for instance develop business processes further and get them implemented, retrieve business reports on all business transactions, design and get better reports implemented, look into the account, form business and expansion strategies, set enterprise values and even be part of product development, sales and /or service delivery operations. All that is run as business meaning every body gets a salary or another value back for his contributions.
Who has an opinion on that? User:Volker Mielke 22:53, 26 June 2007 (GMT)
Trudging through a Slashdot flame-fest over whether "Open Source" means "OSI-compliant license" or "Source code available, possibly under a proprietary license", I found a reference to a 1996 Usenet article that uses the term "Open Source". Samboy 15:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
There is the few sentences about SHARE Inc. that does not show any influence on Open Source, even though it may freely distributed software. I found the paragraph of the history to read:
It's like someone just threw a sentence in there about SHARE. It doesn't explain anything else why it is even in the History section.
This entire article use to be pretty cut-and-dry about Open Source, and now it is like a list of every possible freely distributed piece of software, again. A lot this article can be moved over to the Open source software page. -- 18:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The "criticism" section seems confused - it is introducing concepts about money-making - into a subject that has nothing to do with making money. The whole point about Open Source software is that a group of people decide to release their code to the world free from copyright restrictions, lawyers, and moneylenders. That is one of the main things that attracted me, as an end user and educationalist, to Linux builds, and then Mambo and Joomla! as an alternative to paying large amounts of money to Bill Gates for stuff that the Open Source Community (note - community) has been able to do better or just as well. Open Source creators are probably more motivated by the excitement of doing something useful for the rest of us for free and in trying to achieve the very best results. It's called "voluntary work"! How can anyone be criticised for doing good works? To criticise an enterprise because it is not motivated by greed or the profit motive is just bizarre. The only people really scared of Open Source software are the big companies afraid of losing their billions. A "criticism" in this context is really about how good the final product is, how well it compares with well known commercial products. The fact that it is not a capitalist enterprise is irrelevant or could be mentioned in a "social significance" subsection. or in a social behavioural sub-section questioning why it is that companies insist on spending fortunes upgrading Windows software when they could either not upgrade or switch to the new nice and easy Linuxes or just pay someone to find ways of making Windows do something useful! Seriously, this is an encyclopedia so the entry should be mostly about fact - what it is, what it does, how it works etc etc. with social impacts in a lesser section. 79.66.184.222 15:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Keveen2 12:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This article only has (that I could readily see) an obscure link to Opensource.org (history footnote #3 osihistory). Doesn't it deserve a more prominent link? Is there a better concise URL aout open source software (that could be put on a bumper sticker for example)? Curiously the wiki [Open_Source_Initiative] article does not have a prominent link to Opensource.org - the first 'external link tho only labeled "Official Website" Shouldn't it say Opensource.org as well?
- I think the opening line of the Open_Source_Initiative page should be:
The Open Source Initiative ( [ | www.opensource.org ] ) is an organization dedicated to promoting open-source software.
And the line in the history section of this page should read:
This milestone may be commonly seen as the birth of the Open Source Initiative ( [ | www.opensource.org ] ). citation needed
I'm not a very active OS participant. I suppose turf considerations ("free" vs" "open") account for not have ONE prominent URL. Despite it's shortcomings we should be promoting the term "Open Source" rather than inventing new terms. I think "free" as in "freedom" is an idea too difficult to "sell". BTW, all the related articles on this on wikipedia would make it useful to have more links to: | Various Open source / free software related Wikipedia articles Fholson 12:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Just a thing: as open source is not only regarding informatics and software or other in relation to it, please take in consideration there are other kind of open source projects that need attention. The only talking about the Joe's cell is an open source way and as many know, the Joe's cell is an open source tool, 'cause everyone can made one and use it, but laws don't permit it, so ... the question still. What do they want really? Health or money? But they are out from open source!
So I think it should also necessary to have an index where to find the exact section. If I find something useful and I give it to the collectivity, this is open source, 'cause I don't ask any money or other in return (this means totally free). This must be free for all and no Government can do something, no law. When the source of the base project is open to everyone, it means that everyone can use it. No rights are required. Only, give those modifications you could apply, those updatings, to the entire collectivity to try and find other. This is what a serious collectivity should do.
So a page dedicated to open source, I think should include that index with alla values regarding to it.
But it's up to you. This is only a proposal.
In respect to the asked neutral point of view —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.223.121.133 ( talk) (09:02, 11 October 2007
FYI: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Free_and_open_source_software -- Gronky 13:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
discuss a merger at Talk:Free_and_open_source_software#Merge_FS_.2B_OSS_here Lentower 01:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, I still think the idea of merging the open source and open-source software articles is a really good idea. -- Gronky 16:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a native English speaker and only recently learned of the term " secret sauce". To what extent was the term "open source" invented as a pun on "secret sauce"? Currently, a Google search for the two terms returns no less than 84,000 web pages. But what early evidence of this connection exists? -- LA2 ( talk) 04:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed a good number of links to specific projects, sites, and topics which I did not feel suitable for the broad and general nature of this article. Some of them should probably be included on the open source software page or similar. Here's the diff.-- era ( Talk | History) 21:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
"A Free Open-Source Software Resource", http://www.zentu.net is a site I pay money for, out of my own pocket, to inform people about the benefits of Free Open-Source Software. I have never been paid a penny for any of its content, nor accepted any donations. It is not link-spam; it's useful, relevant, comprehensive and informative. Please accept it in lieu of my financial ability to donate actual cash. Thank you.
Indiejade ( talk) 23:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC) Shawnee :)
The link is useful in that it 'organizes' the vague cloud of 'free open-source software' into categories that are informative and understandable to the average non-technical user. Free open-source software itself is nothing to people unless they understand what it does or can do for them. Free word-processors? A free spreadsheet program? Free graphic-design software? All of these are common examples of Free Open-Source Software that a lot of people would and could benefit from using, but that many don't understand how to get, though they may have heard about F/OSS. The link bridges the gap. The details are explained on the site. The website does collectively what each individual small open-source project cannot do on its own, and that is bring awareness to the concept of Free Open-Source Software as it relates to software for which people would normally pay money. I would be very interested in seeing how many of these removals of my link and revised edits are being done by people on Microsoft Operating Systems. . .
The average non-technical user is not interested in the politics, which is why this argument is extremely futile and hurting the cause. RossPatterson, your opinion that the site is "not a particularly good one at that" is irrelevant, not to mention rude, and unless you can point the way to a website that does what mine does better, I kindly ask that you please do not remove my contribution.
Extremely long alphabetical lists are okay for some things, but sometimes people like and can understand things better when they're organized more simply, explained according to function ala - KISS_Principle. Again, a non-technical user wouldn't necessarily be able to easily make sense of or navigate that extremely long alphabetical list. Nor does the List of open source software packages on wikipedia make efficient use of the correlation of FOSS with operating systems like Linux or Unix. http://www.zentu.net/ does both. The point is for people who know little to nothing about FOSS to be gradually introduced to the idea, without becoming overwhelmed. Again, I assert that my link does NOT harm the "encyclopedic" integrity of any wikipedia page related to this topic. Again, I would be very interested to know exactly what operating system the people who are removing my link are running on their machines. Please DO NOT remove my contribution, which is the link. Indiejade ( talk) 16:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The significance and notability of the site has already been demonstrated as explained above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiejade ( talk • contribs) 22:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm removing this to talk for the time being. In its current form it's simply a statement of personal opinion by whoever wrote it, and is completely unsourced:
-- Tony Sidaway 20:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
the beggining says "Open source is a set of principles and practices on how to write software." However, there are several projects that have hardly anything ( or even COMPLETELY anything ) in common with programming or software in general, such as OpenCola, Vores Øl , [5] .... those are only few examples that i found during last 30 minutes and i'm pretty sure there are much more such projects. I think it would be a good idea to mention this in the article, because it fits the definition of open source ( despite the fact, that it is not software ). 79.185.99.223 ( talk) 16:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Open source as a movement is agnostic about sharing as it does not compel any sharing or put conditions on sharing of improvements, nor prevent actions that prevent future sharing.
I think that this statement isn't true. Altough it matters whether we are speaking about client or server side software. In client side open source software you have to share improvements. -- Zslevi ( talk) 19:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
When I wrote the Open Source definition, Richard Stallman approved of it (in a private email) as "A good definition of Free Software". He has not written his own definition at that time. Free Software and Open Source are both names for the same thing - software licensed a particular way, and the only way they differ is that they talk about it in a different way - Open Source is a campaign directed toward business people, Free Software is not. Even RMS agrees with me on this now (we were on stage in Italy two weeks ago talking about this) although he will of course always want to be identified as a Free Software person because he feels it's most important to talk about Freedom. Once upon a time Eric Raymond did try to differentiate Free Software from Open Source, and he tried to deprecate RMS in general. That was a mistake and does not matter any longer. -- Bruce Perens [6]
If a program is free but not copylefted, then some copies or modified versions may not be free at all. A software company can compile the program, with or without modifications, and distribute the executable file as a proprietary software product. -- [7]
King Kamal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.81.184 ( talk) 03:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The reference to the usenet posting on "Looking for published DES code" is a poor example of previous use because it appears to confuse the sense in which the term is used there. This posting uses 'open source' in its original sense of publicly available intelligence-relevant information as referred to in the article Open Source Intelligence. Might it not be better to mention this original sense of 'open source' in the article and use a reference that does not mention software at all (usenet is bristling with them). Eric Raymond acknowledges this dual sense/appropriation here: "Yes, we're aware of the specialized meaning "open source" has in the intelligence community. This is a feature, not a bug." Jutl ( talk) 08:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Even more importantly to the term is how can benefit society, "Free and Open Source Software is important because it can help NPO’s and CBO’s stop spending valuable resources, which could and should be directed elsewhere, on software. Proprietary software, software produced and marketed with restrictions on its use, is never really owned by the organizations that use it. For example, an NPO generally cannot legally give its workers copies of proprietary software to use at home. Schools cannot send their students home with the software they use at school, and students aren’t allowed to copy proprietary software to share with friends. Free and Open Source software renders these kind of concerns a complete non-issue. It’s really a very simple and elegant solution to an artificially created problem."[open thinking.com] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goolsbymedia ( talk • contribs) 21:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The authors split the article after April 2005 into Open source and Open-source software to help disambiguate the software related subjects from the rest of the open source related topics. It was obvious that the software related topics dominated the expression open source, but not enough to completely eradicate any information about open source that is not software based. It was commonly fond that someone wanted to edit the open source article (before the open-source software page was split out) and change words or information to bias it towards software related subjects. That made the article very hard to read. This page, Open Source, became more of a general reference (disambiguation) to several articles, even open-source software. I don't see any comments to justify any reason to erase very informative history and references about open source and especially the many not about software. I vote to return the page back to the more disambiguated version. — Dzonatas 20:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I notice in the section for the OSD there are links where it says Perens wrote the OSD then later says that Stallman wrote the OSD. The sections is obviously dubious. Here is the version found: here — Dzonatas 21:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
This unreadable, unsourced muddle that has been inserted shouldn't dominate the article. I'm all for mentioning antecedents and parallel ideas to open source but in the end the article is supposed be about open SOURCE, not blogs and collages. Either that or it should be named something more general. Elsendero ( talk) 23:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that this fitness section is apporpeate to mention in this article, as it does not relate to the os movement. Therefor I find that this section should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.167.139.54 ( talk) 13:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I saw this blog post, and it made me wonder: Should we put a {{ distinguish}} tag on this page distinguishing "Open source" from Open Source Intelligence? I know this article here mentions OSINT partway down the page ( here), but it's pretty minimal. Thoughts? I would just be bold and put the tag there but I don't know if this has already been discussed to death somewhere else. BonnySwan ( talk) 15:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm busy working on the Obama campaign right now so I don't have much time to spend editing Wikipedia, but I really think the intro to this page sucks. It is poorly written and confusing. -- Geo19 4 ( talk) 01:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
One indicator of the significance of open source (software) is its growth pattern. We make the case for exponential growth here: Deshpande, Amit (2008).
"The Total Growth of Open Source". Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Open Source Systems (OSS 2008). Springer Verlag. pp. 197–209. {{
cite conference}}
: External link in
(
help); Unknown parameter |authorlink2=
|booktitle=
ignored (|book-title=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help) (The previous information is written up in Wikipedia citation format for copy and paste). I think this should go into the introduction but I hesitate to put it there myself; would be good if someone else agrees and does the job. If nobody comes by I might do it myself :-)
Dirk Riehle (
talk)
09:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The sentence in the first paragraph of the 'History' section:
“ | There are earlier instances of open source movements and free software such as IBM's source releases of its operating systems in the 1960s and the SHARE user group that formed to facilitate the exchange of such software. | ” |
...is preposterous. IBM never released the source code of their Operating Systems, even if they originally licensed them for free to mainframe customers. In the IBM System/360 era, what users had access to which most resembled "open source" were Supervisor program assembly listings and "Program Logic Manuals" which described the internals of most, but not all, of an Operating System workings. Other than that, what they did at most was to build up a very limited stock (which they called "a Library") of contributed programs, which were available as open source when the expression had not been coined yet; those programs were distributed on tape, either in source or in both source plus object versions. Later on, when IBM began charging for their software, they revamped it and renamed all of it as "Program Products", and leased or sold them, but again never released the source code; and their feeble "library" of contributed programs dissapeared for good. Besides, the purposes behind the founding of the influential SHARE User Group were vastly more ambitious, complex and far-reaching than merely "to facilitate the exchange of such software." I'll come back to this article in a while. If the lying paragraph in question is still standing, I'll simply delete it. Regards, -- AVM ( talk) 17:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
IBM did release source code of their operating systems, even if you don't believe it.
VM and the VM Community: Past, Present, and Future, revised 08/16/97, pg 54
IBM's OCO Policy Birthday
Dave Pitts' IBM 7090 support – An example of distrbuted source: Page contains a link to
IBM 7090/94 IBSYS source, including COBOL and FORTRAN compilers.
Ahwiv (
talk)
18:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I removed them in order to make some screenshots for a video promoting collaborative work in web enviroment, but I will put them back as soon as I finish. Regards, JoCalejandro —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoCalejandro ( talk • contribs) 17:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I already out them back, thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoCalejandro ( talk • contribs) 17:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
added more ciation in market section V1K 09:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC) added more citation in market section V1K 09:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC) added this line in history section "Over the next week Raymond and others worked on spreading the word. Linus Torvalds gave an all-important imprimatur the following day. Phil Hughes offered a pulpit in Linux Journal. Richard Stallman flirted with adopting the term, then changed his mind." Without it, it gives the impression that the word "open source" was coined without the consent of RMS & Linus. V1K 09:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC) The intro was rewritten since nov 2006 into a perfect intro for the article open source software, as that intro belongs there, i restored the intro of the article to november 2006, i hope thats ok. Mion ( talk) 23:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Honestly, I do not understand why my link to Open World Forum has been removed in the external links. This is the only Open Source event for decision makers, not for profit, supported by all large Open Source communities : OSI, Apache, Eclipse, Linux Foundation, OW2. This is the only event of this kind, gathering all the Open Source decision makers worldwide. By the way, Florence Devouard was a speaker at the 2009 Edition... Much more relevant than other links such as ' http://www.askmar.com/open.html'... ;-) If you need more information, please check http://www.openworldforum.org/about or contact me. Best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by JCS2050 ( talk • contribs) 23:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I recently added an external link to Open World Forum, that has been removed. Honestly, I do not understand why it was removed. This is the only Open Source event for decision makers worldwide, not for profit, supported by all large Open Source communities : OSI, Apache, Eclipse, Linux Foundation, OW2, Qualipso... This is the only event of this kind, gathering most key Open Source decision makers from all over the world. Just check the 'About' and the Program Committe list : http://www.openworldforum.org/about. By the way, Florence Devouard was a speaker at the 2009 Edition... This link seems to me much more relevant than other accepted links such as ' http://www.askmar.com/open.html'... or others ;-) If you need more information, please contact me. I will be happy to provide more information to demonstrate this link should be added. ;-) Best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by JCS2050 ( talk • contribs) 23:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The article lead states "not to be confused with free software" but the category deletion debate defines it both as software and as free software. Then there also is the open source software article that does refer to software suggesting it is not one and the same thing after all. I'm not sure anymore but it seems to me that the buzz word Open Source (at least theoretically) applies to all fields where patents and intellectual property are involved? I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia categories to re-request a category:Open source I think the same logic should apply to the category and the article name space. 84.104.135.141 ( talk) 15:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Kit cars are the metaphor for open source.
Building a kit car offers extensive modularity in construction, absolute flexibility in parallel construction and hey, adding new and crazy ideas in as you go is no problem .
testing- well it really is in the REAL world. Just don’t be in front of me and brake all of a sudden
Those big manufacturers are just evil dudes. Just because they spend a few hundred million to produce a quality and stabilised product that shouldn’t mean they can keep the patented design ideas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.130.73.66 ( talk) 08:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article carry some mention of the Debian Project? The Open Source Definition did, after all, start out as an exact copy of the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In my opinion, the DFSG formed the *meaning* of the term Open Source which is more important than which words were attached to that definition. Ean Schuessler ( talk) 22:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
So, if i use some open ource software. lets say some free one to make a game. would that mean that the game i made is also automatically under open source? or can people copyright material made from open software? Gman124 talk 15:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
As the new Java upgrade is proving, IP can force companies to try to squeeze a very large person into a very small swimsuit. If it were an open source library, everyone could pick and choose the tools they need for their particular application, but as no-one can inspect IP source code, the pig in the poke, the entire library, has to be both sent and received. This makes for huge software bloat, a problem which has been a growing (ba-doom-boom) problem for something like twenty or thirty years now. The other effect is limiting the size of the library, which could otherwise be as large as the user-base, which has a positive-feedback effect, if you think about it. Thus the addition of the "Diseconomy of scale" link. I've been a fan of that part of WP for a while now, and it's paying off. If you think of everyone who handles Java in any way as being part of one huge organization, then you see that it's not just a very large organization, it is compartmentalized by IP. This is what makes the whole problem so bad, and this applies to -all- IP software, in an environment that all but guarantees further bloat. --TheLastWordSword-- 74.41.81.126 ( talk) 01:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
"Coffee: capsule-based beverage systems such as Nestle's Nespresso or Krups' Tassimo turn home-brewed coffee from an inherently "open-source" beverage into a product limited by the specific range of capsules made available by the system manufacturers." is not a description of anything open source as such, and if this is to be included, then that opens the floodgates; can we please remove this? David Woodward ☮ ♡♢☞☽ 14:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
So what about hyphenation with open source?
Should be discussed. I find that when saying:
"This program is open source", a hyphen is not needed.
But when saying:
"This program is open-source software", a hyphen IS required. Same goes for "open-ended discussion", but in that case, "open-ended" is always hyphenated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.87.145 ( talk) 14:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC) 88.112.87.145 ( talk) 14:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
The Media section begins with "open source" in its first line under the heading so to speak. Shouldn't the O in open source be capitalized? Not picking, but thought I would contribute to y'alls wiki as I've been absent for awhile.
It is located here. -- Coffeehound ( talk) 23:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
There are a lot of articles in Category:Free software culture and documents which don't relate to free software at all. I'd like to re-create Category:Open source to house these and other related articles, and include subcategories like Category:Open content. This category was removed in 2006 after this discussion. – Pnm ( talk) 02:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The current list is quite long, goes against the WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and is also quite arbitrary in what is on it. If noone objects, I will prune the list, maybe do a summery like in the Free Software#Examples of free software. Including a list of best-known examples can be useful to the reader, but a very long list will not benefit the reader, and will only invite bad edits where someone want to add their favorite software/product/stuff to the list. Belorn ( talk) 16:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The current text that "In production and development, open source is a philosophy,[
1][
2] or pragmatic methodology[2] that promotes free redistribution and access to an end product's design and implementation details" is quite unsupported given that both cite 1 and 2 do not make any statement to support the claim that open source is either a philosophy or a pragmatic methodology. Source 1 (Ubuntu) states that open source is:
collective power in action. The power of a worldwide community of highly skilled experts that build, share and improve the very latest software together - then make it available to everyone.
Out of this, there is at best some implied/indirect support of some hinted philosophy, or pragmatic methodology, but same could be said about Collective bargaining which is neither described as a philosophy, or pragmatic methodology. If one would dare to guess the intended message, I suspect Ubuntu want to describe the effect and result of open source.
The second source (android), is describing the android philosophy, which in turn states:
Android is intentionally and explicitly an open-source -- as opposed to free software -- effort: a group of organizations with shared needs has pooled resources to collaborate on a single implementation of a shared product. The Android philosophy is pragmatic, first and foremost. The objective is a shared product that each contributor can tailor and customize.
It is of course free to interpretation, but from my point of view it looks like they say that Android is the result from the open source community, not the free software community. If they had wanted to say "The Open Source philosophy is pragmatic", they would had said that and not "The Android philosophy is pragmatic". In the end this leave me with the impression that neither those sources are directly supporting the claim that: open source is a philosophy/pragmatic methodology. Instead the only reliable source we got is the OSI open source definition, which is describing software licensed under specific distribution terms. Belorn ( talk) 00:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Android in it current use and regulations on mobile phones
The "Economic analysis" section opens with "Most economists agree that open-source candidates have an information good" and lists citation 14 as "Grandstand, 1999". Searching Google for '"information good" Grandstand 1999' returns nothing relevant. Is there a better citation for this statement? Greensencha ( talk) 06:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Ubuntu 11.04.png, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Ubuntu 11.04.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC) |
As it stands, the article is very heavily weighted towards "open source" in its technology-related meaning, specifically with regard to computing and software. While that's accurate in the sense that this is by far the most common use of the term today, we already have a separate article for open-source software (OSS). Imo, this article should focus on the history and use of the term in all known senses and leave the details about OSS to that other article.
The history section in particular needs to go into more detail about the origin of the term and its use generally, especially in non-technological contexts. For example, the 1982 edition of the World Factbook says, at the beginning of its entry about the United States (page 244, emphasis mine), "This 'Factsheet' on the US is provided solely as a service to those wishing to make rough comparisons of foreign country data with a US 'yardstick.' Information is from US open sources and publications and in no sense represents estimates by the US Intelligence Community." Clearly the term was in use back in 1982 in the general sense of freely available and distributed information. I imagine the term probably predates that.
So, basically, if anyone's out there who knows more about this, it would be good to have more detailed information about the etymology and usage of the term in this article. -- Hux ( talk) 03:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
There is currently two sections both trying to take on the history of the term open source. One is called History, the other Society and culture. Both is mostly/all unsourced in the regards of any information which dates back before 1998 and thus the creation of the open source movement. I could do a free hand rewrite of it, but without sources it would be better to start with an open discussion first.
My first thought would be to rewrite History section to simply start talking about free sharing of technological information, and then let the term open-source be used after the events of 1998 has been described. For Society and culture section, the history of monetization of culture could be a good choice for subjects pre-1998, and open-source culture for post-1998. Belorn ( talk) 07:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
This is still a problem, added a "cleanup-merge" tag. -- Beland ( talk) 16:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
References
The article lacks economic content. At least a brief independent section on the economics of open source should be included, established financing practices, project costs, estimated social benefits, state of wages (not all participants are income stalled, right?)... djb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.50.141 ( talk) 01:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() | 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 |
"ideological and confrontational connotations of the term free software" is not NPOV, among other errors. Should be "Free Software" with the quotes. Cherlin 20:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a confusion here between what open source and open content is. Open content licensing is not the same as open source licensing, otherwise there wouldn't be Open Content licensing. This distinction was blurred in this article, and I am going to fix that.
If Open Source is the same as Open Content, then why not let's whack the Open Content entry? People like Lawrence Lessig are probably wrong about using Open Content licensing, right? If a revert is done, I do hope that this comment in the talk page is addressed. -- TaranRampersad 00:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
"Very nascent but has huge potential." under Technology section. Very opinionated. Genjix
The opening particularly reads at present like a direct entry into a deep and abstrse argument between people who know everything about the subject already. This doesn't serve the purpose of an encyclopaedia.
I suggest:-
Midgley 10:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment:Article really needs to be expanded to include open source organizations, open source planning, implementation, etc. That or create a category known as "Open Source" and expound upon it from there. There are many things involved in the phrase "open source" that are not even remotely touched upon here. Given the time I may expound upon that myself. Seansquared 11:55, 20 July 2006
Comment: I think the Mandriva Linux screenshot should be removed immediately. For two reasons: (1) It creates confusion between open source and open source software and (2) a screenshot does not sufficiently explain what open source is. It should be moved to the OSS page instead.
i do beleve that the true concept now known as open source was orginally created by ben franklin... with his experiments with lightning.... and the lightning rod...
Someone slapped a mergefrom template at the top of this page with no supporting discussion. I've removed it because it detracts from the article (for the majority of visitors who just came here to read about 'Open source'). And what's more the merge could take place and the contents would be swallowed by this article without it impacting it much, so this page is the wrong place for the label. Much better is to have an ugly label at the top of the other page ( Open implementation). So I've moved it there. Of course you can have it on both, but unless a merge is actaully under active discussion, I think it's a shame to leave it lingering on this more prominent article.
Anyway this is the place for discussion. So discuss! Should there be a seperate Open implementation article? Don't care much either way myself -- Nojer2 09:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Wickethewok User:Wickethewok
OK Wickethewok dropped the merge template from the other page, so I guess that's resolved -- Nojer2 10:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
...and now there is an ugly mergefrom template for an Open source culture merge. At least there is a discussion this time. Go to Talk:Open source culture to talk about resolving this (i.e. decide if we should merge then remove the label, or not merge... and remove the label).
But my feeling is... while that discussion is in progress the label should be removed from this (more important) Open source page anyway, because it detracts. But anyway, the very ugly NPOV label is currently overshadowing it, so maybe it doesn't matter! -- Nojer2 10:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know, she is unique in being an open source fictional character. Should she be listed, and if so, where? 67.10.175.242 02:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi all,
I have not promoted this because I feel that the article still needs some work. Specifically:
Cedars 09:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
There are a lot of pen and paper RPG games and additions to the games recently licensed under GPL, GFDL, CC and most commonly the Open Gaming License. Check out this website: http://www.opengamingfoundation.org
BT: You mean the article on Open gaming? // Brick Thrower 18:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Fellow Wikipedians,
I just read the Open Source entry and was shocked to see what looked like an advertisement for Eric Raymond's book, The Cathedral and the Bazaar on the right hand side. Of course it only links to the gif image of the book cover and that book is a foundational document in the history of open source--still, it felt like a commercial. Am I being too sensitive? It just didn't feel in the tradition of wikipedia to so prominently promote an author that way. Let me know what you think. Domo2700 19:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
dominick
Why was Mandriva Linux being the "screenshot" for Open Source? It is not one of the most notable open source projects, and I think it includes non-OSS. Removed for now. Foolswisdom 19:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing negative to say about open source? -- Mikeblas 02:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Lack of negativity does not make an article POV. I'm removing the NPOV tag. Please feel free to add criticisms to think article though. — Pengo talk · contribs 12:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Besides, the article already has criticism of open source: — Pengo talk · contribs
I added the NPOV tag back again. Clearly, since there is this much discussion, the article does not meet WP:NPOV guidelines. (See WP:NPOV_dispute for what qualifies: "Note, however, that there is a strong inductive argument that, if a page is in an NPOV dispute, it very probably is not neutral.") There is a pejorative tone taken vis a vis free software, and in fact the whole controversy of the free vs. open source software movements is only touched on. In addition, there's nothing of all the studies Microsoft has conducted, whether or not those studies themselves be neutral. Finally, there is no argument about the legal minefield that is open source licensing and the restrictions it has; take a look at debian-legal if you want examples. I'm not trolling, I write open source software myself, but I agree with the other posters. -- Chris Pickett 03:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
how far are we on the issue? IMHO this is an important article, and I would love to see the NPOV/balance tag removed. What exectly are the points that need to be adressed before this would become NPOV again? We should be able to find out what needs work, and consequently edit it so that it is acceptable to all. To start out with, where are those Microsoft papers? i'll have a looksee if I can fit them in myself. Martijn Hoekstra 01:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
First, it would be absurd to require a criticism of everything, including biographies. But when there are criticisms that are held by an appreciable contingent (and don't ask me to define what is "appreciable" or "significant" or whatever other term you think applies), then that criticism should be included. Here, I can think of two criticisms or concerns that are pretty widely held. 1) The concern that some "Open Source" could include some code that violates a patent and 2) that the term "open source" software is a misnomer, and should not be confused with "free software" (which in turn should not be confused with "for free" software), as per Richard Stallman's argument here [3]. Josh.anders 00:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest that anyone who has something negative to add concerning Open Source or an argument against it should roll up their sleeves and ADD it to the article. You're more than welcome to. If there is a rash of deletions and whatnot of said criticisms, then perhaps this could be considered NPOV. As it is, you're asking people to write about a side of the matter they know little about. Just because there is information missing from an article doesn't mean there's been a deliberate attempt to censor that information. NPOV tags should be reserved for articles that show DELIBERATE attempts to silence either side of an issue. Stop complaining and write a section of criticisms yourself if you're so adamant about it. Wellesradio 21:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Wellesradio
The development of early operating systems and utilites was from code freely shared between vendors and their customers. Note the IBM 701 user group, SHARE. That beginning, and why it went away, should be included in this article. 69.106.232.37 16:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this article misses the point of a process that has been going on for a very long time. The direct ancestors of GNU certainly started with things like the BSD release from Berkeley. All DARPA and government funded projects required that non-classified software be freely available to the public. All that was required was the cost of the tape for duplication.
The Ingres project at Berkeley was funded by the Census Department to process the 1970 census data. Mike Stonebraker brought in the first Unix system outside of Bell Labs into Berkeley and made copies of Ingres available to anyone, but sent them primarily to other universities. Unix then became the primary operating system at Berkeley and releases were sent out under the same rules, which ultimately became the BSD distribution and included that original Ingres system. Bill Joy was the person primarily responsible for assembling this release. Once the internet really started going beyond uucp and dial-up connections, distributions became completely electronic and totally free.
Linux, GNU and the whole open source movement owe far more to these early steps toward free and open software distribution than what is described here. Even the BSD licensing concepts were influential in the development of open source licenses.
-- Johnnewton 09:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
It should somehow be possible to organize an open source translation project – i.e. "Open Translation" for poems, songs etc.
When reading poetical translations made mainly by more or less know poets, I think one often has better ideas for certain verses or images that the poet tried to recreate in the target language – whereas for some verses he may have found English verses that are hard to improve.
Thus if many people work on trying to provide "the perfect" translation of say
Der Erlkönig by not removing other ideas/text but just adding their own it should be much more likely to exhaust what the language has to offer.
I think it’s not easy to find a good organizational pattern for such a project but that's not different with
Open music.
Sincerely,
Christian Storm
14:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The link to "Open Source Learning Project" (under Society and Culture - Education) does not work. It links to a WikiBooks page, which says "the requested page title was invalid, empty, or incorrectly linked."
Isn't Wikipedia the most splendid example of aplying the open source concept. How can we even think of claiming that an article about open source is even a decent article, much less a high quality article when we don't even mention this. Can I even believe that somebody who writes an article on Wikipedia about open source knows what he is talking about when he-she is not aware that every chararcter written is an open source action.
This is not the Encyclopedia Britannica, this is Wikipedia. And this is open source and we should let everybody be aware that we know what we are doing.
Afil 16:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm new here -- be nice!
Ironically, I came to this page to learn more about open source. Learn by doing, I guess. Somebody help me out with this quote from the page:
'"Open source" as applied to culture defines a culture in which fixations are made generally available. Participants in such a culture are able to modify those products and redistribute them back into the community.'
"fixations"??? I don't get it. The link doesn't clarify things either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Junglebike ( talk • contribs) 23:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
It is part of the new age art culture. Don't quote me on that, but that is where you want look to research it for where the word is used more. For example, where you have several teams of people paint a single picture, it becomes a fixation. 23:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.176.177 ( talk)
The title says what i wanted to say ;)
eg: 50 Open Source success stories in Business, Education, and Government Comedies of Fair U$e blog Microsoft Open Specification Promise
Open Source covers a vast array of applications. Having a lot of good external links is important. Which external links, in particular, do you find useless? Please list at least some of them, instead of making the vague statement "Too many useless external links".
Currently looks like it was a bunch of articles merged together (I don't know if it was but it looks like it), has poor flow and structure. Horrible lists, generally poorly cited, overcomplex language, some bits that read like OR. Badly needs cleanup. NicM 19:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
I'd argue that community open source and commercial open source are two quite different variants of open source. Some might even dispute that commercial open source has something to do with (the original spirit of) open source at all. I suggest whoever is going to do the cleanup adds this distinction to the article. Dirk Riehle 21:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Could someone explain the difference and appropriate uses of each? Philipolson 16:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Although the Snow Crash entry is interesting, I don't see why it would be added to this article, so I undid the edit. -- Unixguy 15:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
How does the "Hill of Crosses" Have anythingto do with open source? Motor.on 20:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
This article is full of missing images, unordered content, messy presentation, and more. We need to get this cleaned up!
Run an enterprise in an open source approach
I suggest that the term open source and in particular the conceptional approach behind should be decoupled from software or product development? The term might be grown up in that area but the concept as such seems to be universal and more and more valuable/important in an increasing global and globally integrated enterprise.
Would “open source enterprise” the right title for an enterprise that is run and developed in accordance to an open source approach?
I am not talking about an enterprise who utilizes open source software or a company who develops products in accordance to an open source approach. I suggest a legal, profitable self sustain enterprise that is truly open in almost all aspects. That means that everybody can join in to for instance develop business processes further and get them implemented, retrieve business reports on all business transactions, design and get better reports implemented, look into the account, form business and expansion strategies, set enterprise values and even be part of product development, sales and /or service delivery operations. All that is run as business meaning every body gets a salary or another value back for his contributions.
Who has an opinion on that? User:Volker Mielke 22:53, 26 June 2007 (GMT)
Trudging through a Slashdot flame-fest over whether "Open Source" means "OSI-compliant license" or "Source code available, possibly under a proprietary license", I found a reference to a 1996 Usenet article that uses the term "Open Source". Samboy 15:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
There is the few sentences about SHARE Inc. that does not show any influence on Open Source, even though it may freely distributed software. I found the paragraph of the history to read:
It's like someone just threw a sentence in there about SHARE. It doesn't explain anything else why it is even in the History section.
This entire article use to be pretty cut-and-dry about Open Source, and now it is like a list of every possible freely distributed piece of software, again. A lot this article can be moved over to the Open source software page. -- 18:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The "criticism" section seems confused - it is introducing concepts about money-making - into a subject that has nothing to do with making money. The whole point about Open Source software is that a group of people decide to release their code to the world free from copyright restrictions, lawyers, and moneylenders. That is one of the main things that attracted me, as an end user and educationalist, to Linux builds, and then Mambo and Joomla! as an alternative to paying large amounts of money to Bill Gates for stuff that the Open Source Community (note - community) has been able to do better or just as well. Open Source creators are probably more motivated by the excitement of doing something useful for the rest of us for free and in trying to achieve the very best results. It's called "voluntary work"! How can anyone be criticised for doing good works? To criticise an enterprise because it is not motivated by greed or the profit motive is just bizarre. The only people really scared of Open Source software are the big companies afraid of losing their billions. A "criticism" in this context is really about how good the final product is, how well it compares with well known commercial products. The fact that it is not a capitalist enterprise is irrelevant or could be mentioned in a "social significance" subsection. or in a social behavioural sub-section questioning why it is that companies insist on spending fortunes upgrading Windows software when they could either not upgrade or switch to the new nice and easy Linuxes or just pay someone to find ways of making Windows do something useful! Seriously, this is an encyclopedia so the entry should be mostly about fact - what it is, what it does, how it works etc etc. with social impacts in a lesser section. 79.66.184.222 15:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Keveen2 12:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This article only has (that I could readily see) an obscure link to Opensource.org (history footnote #3 osihistory). Doesn't it deserve a more prominent link? Is there a better concise URL aout open source software (that could be put on a bumper sticker for example)? Curiously the wiki [Open_Source_Initiative] article does not have a prominent link to Opensource.org - the first 'external link tho only labeled "Official Website" Shouldn't it say Opensource.org as well?
- I think the opening line of the Open_Source_Initiative page should be:
The Open Source Initiative ( [ | www.opensource.org ] ) is an organization dedicated to promoting open-source software.
And the line in the history section of this page should read:
This milestone may be commonly seen as the birth of the Open Source Initiative ( [ | www.opensource.org ] ). citation needed
I'm not a very active OS participant. I suppose turf considerations ("free" vs" "open") account for not have ONE prominent URL. Despite it's shortcomings we should be promoting the term "Open Source" rather than inventing new terms. I think "free" as in "freedom" is an idea too difficult to "sell". BTW, all the related articles on this on wikipedia would make it useful to have more links to: | Various Open source / free software related Wikipedia articles Fholson 12:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Just a thing: as open source is not only regarding informatics and software or other in relation to it, please take in consideration there are other kind of open source projects that need attention. The only talking about the Joe's cell is an open source way and as many know, the Joe's cell is an open source tool, 'cause everyone can made one and use it, but laws don't permit it, so ... the question still. What do they want really? Health or money? But they are out from open source!
So I think it should also necessary to have an index where to find the exact section. If I find something useful and I give it to the collectivity, this is open source, 'cause I don't ask any money or other in return (this means totally free). This must be free for all and no Government can do something, no law. When the source of the base project is open to everyone, it means that everyone can use it. No rights are required. Only, give those modifications you could apply, those updatings, to the entire collectivity to try and find other. This is what a serious collectivity should do.
So a page dedicated to open source, I think should include that index with alla values regarding to it.
But it's up to you. This is only a proposal.
In respect to the asked neutral point of view —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.223.121.133 ( talk) (09:02, 11 October 2007
FYI: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Free_and_open_source_software -- Gronky 13:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
discuss a merger at Talk:Free_and_open_source_software#Merge_FS_.2B_OSS_here Lentower 01:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, I still think the idea of merging the open source and open-source software articles is a really good idea. -- Gronky 16:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a native English speaker and only recently learned of the term " secret sauce". To what extent was the term "open source" invented as a pun on "secret sauce"? Currently, a Google search for the two terms returns no less than 84,000 web pages. But what early evidence of this connection exists? -- LA2 ( talk) 04:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed a good number of links to specific projects, sites, and topics which I did not feel suitable for the broad and general nature of this article. Some of them should probably be included on the open source software page or similar. Here's the diff.-- era ( Talk | History) 21:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
"A Free Open-Source Software Resource", http://www.zentu.net is a site I pay money for, out of my own pocket, to inform people about the benefits of Free Open-Source Software. I have never been paid a penny for any of its content, nor accepted any donations. It is not link-spam; it's useful, relevant, comprehensive and informative. Please accept it in lieu of my financial ability to donate actual cash. Thank you.
Indiejade ( talk) 23:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC) Shawnee :)
The link is useful in that it 'organizes' the vague cloud of 'free open-source software' into categories that are informative and understandable to the average non-technical user. Free open-source software itself is nothing to people unless they understand what it does or can do for them. Free word-processors? A free spreadsheet program? Free graphic-design software? All of these are common examples of Free Open-Source Software that a lot of people would and could benefit from using, but that many don't understand how to get, though they may have heard about F/OSS. The link bridges the gap. The details are explained on the site. The website does collectively what each individual small open-source project cannot do on its own, and that is bring awareness to the concept of Free Open-Source Software as it relates to software for which people would normally pay money. I would be very interested in seeing how many of these removals of my link and revised edits are being done by people on Microsoft Operating Systems. . .
The average non-technical user is not interested in the politics, which is why this argument is extremely futile and hurting the cause. RossPatterson, your opinion that the site is "not a particularly good one at that" is irrelevant, not to mention rude, and unless you can point the way to a website that does what mine does better, I kindly ask that you please do not remove my contribution.
Extremely long alphabetical lists are okay for some things, but sometimes people like and can understand things better when they're organized more simply, explained according to function ala - KISS_Principle. Again, a non-technical user wouldn't necessarily be able to easily make sense of or navigate that extremely long alphabetical list. Nor does the List of open source software packages on wikipedia make efficient use of the correlation of FOSS with operating systems like Linux or Unix. http://www.zentu.net/ does both. The point is for people who know little to nothing about FOSS to be gradually introduced to the idea, without becoming overwhelmed. Again, I assert that my link does NOT harm the "encyclopedic" integrity of any wikipedia page related to this topic. Again, I would be very interested to know exactly what operating system the people who are removing my link are running on their machines. Please DO NOT remove my contribution, which is the link. Indiejade ( talk) 16:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The significance and notability of the site has already been demonstrated as explained above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiejade ( talk • contribs) 22:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm removing this to talk for the time being. In its current form it's simply a statement of personal opinion by whoever wrote it, and is completely unsourced:
-- Tony Sidaway 20:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
the beggining says "Open source is a set of principles and practices on how to write software." However, there are several projects that have hardly anything ( or even COMPLETELY anything ) in common with programming or software in general, such as OpenCola, Vores Øl , [5] .... those are only few examples that i found during last 30 minutes and i'm pretty sure there are much more such projects. I think it would be a good idea to mention this in the article, because it fits the definition of open source ( despite the fact, that it is not software ). 79.185.99.223 ( talk) 16:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Open source as a movement is agnostic about sharing as it does not compel any sharing or put conditions on sharing of improvements, nor prevent actions that prevent future sharing.
I think that this statement isn't true. Altough it matters whether we are speaking about client or server side software. In client side open source software you have to share improvements. -- Zslevi ( talk) 19:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
When I wrote the Open Source definition, Richard Stallman approved of it (in a private email) as "A good definition of Free Software". He has not written his own definition at that time. Free Software and Open Source are both names for the same thing - software licensed a particular way, and the only way they differ is that they talk about it in a different way - Open Source is a campaign directed toward business people, Free Software is not. Even RMS agrees with me on this now (we were on stage in Italy two weeks ago talking about this) although he will of course always want to be identified as a Free Software person because he feels it's most important to talk about Freedom. Once upon a time Eric Raymond did try to differentiate Free Software from Open Source, and he tried to deprecate RMS in general. That was a mistake and does not matter any longer. -- Bruce Perens [6]
If a program is free but not copylefted, then some copies or modified versions may not be free at all. A software company can compile the program, with or without modifications, and distribute the executable file as a proprietary software product. -- [7]
King Kamal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.81.184 ( talk) 03:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The reference to the usenet posting on "Looking for published DES code" is a poor example of previous use because it appears to confuse the sense in which the term is used there. This posting uses 'open source' in its original sense of publicly available intelligence-relevant information as referred to in the article Open Source Intelligence. Might it not be better to mention this original sense of 'open source' in the article and use a reference that does not mention software at all (usenet is bristling with them). Eric Raymond acknowledges this dual sense/appropriation here: "Yes, we're aware of the specialized meaning "open source" has in the intelligence community. This is a feature, not a bug." Jutl ( talk) 08:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Even more importantly to the term is how can benefit society, "Free and Open Source Software is important because it can help NPO’s and CBO’s stop spending valuable resources, which could and should be directed elsewhere, on software. Proprietary software, software produced and marketed with restrictions on its use, is never really owned by the organizations that use it. For example, an NPO generally cannot legally give its workers copies of proprietary software to use at home. Schools cannot send their students home with the software they use at school, and students aren’t allowed to copy proprietary software to share with friends. Free and Open Source software renders these kind of concerns a complete non-issue. It’s really a very simple and elegant solution to an artificially created problem."[open thinking.com] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goolsbymedia ( talk • contribs) 21:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The authors split the article after April 2005 into Open source and Open-source software to help disambiguate the software related subjects from the rest of the open source related topics. It was obvious that the software related topics dominated the expression open source, but not enough to completely eradicate any information about open source that is not software based. It was commonly fond that someone wanted to edit the open source article (before the open-source software page was split out) and change words or information to bias it towards software related subjects. That made the article very hard to read. This page, Open Source, became more of a general reference (disambiguation) to several articles, even open-source software. I don't see any comments to justify any reason to erase very informative history and references about open source and especially the many not about software. I vote to return the page back to the more disambiguated version. — Dzonatas 20:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I notice in the section for the OSD there are links where it says Perens wrote the OSD then later says that Stallman wrote the OSD. The sections is obviously dubious. Here is the version found: here — Dzonatas 21:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
This unreadable, unsourced muddle that has been inserted shouldn't dominate the article. I'm all for mentioning antecedents and parallel ideas to open source but in the end the article is supposed be about open SOURCE, not blogs and collages. Either that or it should be named something more general. Elsendero ( talk) 23:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that this fitness section is apporpeate to mention in this article, as it does not relate to the os movement. Therefor I find that this section should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.167.139.54 ( talk) 13:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I saw this blog post, and it made me wonder: Should we put a {{ distinguish}} tag on this page distinguishing "Open source" from Open Source Intelligence? I know this article here mentions OSINT partway down the page ( here), but it's pretty minimal. Thoughts? I would just be bold and put the tag there but I don't know if this has already been discussed to death somewhere else. BonnySwan ( talk) 15:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm busy working on the Obama campaign right now so I don't have much time to spend editing Wikipedia, but I really think the intro to this page sucks. It is poorly written and confusing. -- Geo19 4 ( talk) 01:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
One indicator of the significance of open source (software) is its growth pattern. We make the case for exponential growth here: Deshpande, Amit (2008).
"The Total Growth of Open Source". Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Open Source Systems (OSS 2008). Springer Verlag. pp. 197–209. {{
cite conference}}
: External link in
(
help); Unknown parameter |authorlink2=
|booktitle=
ignored (|book-title=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help) (The previous information is written up in Wikipedia citation format for copy and paste). I think this should go into the introduction but I hesitate to put it there myself; would be good if someone else agrees and does the job. If nobody comes by I might do it myself :-)
Dirk Riehle (
talk)
09:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The sentence in the first paragraph of the 'History' section:
“ | There are earlier instances of open source movements and free software such as IBM's source releases of its operating systems in the 1960s and the SHARE user group that formed to facilitate the exchange of such software. | ” |
...is preposterous. IBM never released the source code of their Operating Systems, even if they originally licensed them for free to mainframe customers. In the IBM System/360 era, what users had access to which most resembled "open source" were Supervisor program assembly listings and "Program Logic Manuals" which described the internals of most, but not all, of an Operating System workings. Other than that, what they did at most was to build up a very limited stock (which they called "a Library") of contributed programs, which were available as open source when the expression had not been coined yet; those programs were distributed on tape, either in source or in both source plus object versions. Later on, when IBM began charging for their software, they revamped it and renamed all of it as "Program Products", and leased or sold them, but again never released the source code; and their feeble "library" of contributed programs dissapeared for good. Besides, the purposes behind the founding of the influential SHARE User Group were vastly more ambitious, complex and far-reaching than merely "to facilitate the exchange of such software." I'll come back to this article in a while. If the lying paragraph in question is still standing, I'll simply delete it. Regards, -- AVM ( talk) 17:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
IBM did release source code of their operating systems, even if you don't believe it.
VM and the VM Community: Past, Present, and Future, revised 08/16/97, pg 54
IBM's OCO Policy Birthday
Dave Pitts' IBM 7090 support – An example of distrbuted source: Page contains a link to
IBM 7090/94 IBSYS source, including COBOL and FORTRAN compilers.
Ahwiv (
talk)
18:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I removed them in order to make some screenshots for a video promoting collaborative work in web enviroment, but I will put them back as soon as I finish. Regards, JoCalejandro —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoCalejandro ( talk • contribs) 17:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I already out them back, thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoCalejandro ( talk • contribs) 17:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
added more ciation in market section V1K 09:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC) added more citation in market section V1K 09:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC) added this line in history section "Over the next week Raymond and others worked on spreading the word. Linus Torvalds gave an all-important imprimatur the following day. Phil Hughes offered a pulpit in Linux Journal. Richard Stallman flirted with adopting the term, then changed his mind." Without it, it gives the impression that the word "open source" was coined without the consent of RMS & Linus. V1K 09:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC) The intro was rewritten since nov 2006 into a perfect intro for the article open source software, as that intro belongs there, i restored the intro of the article to november 2006, i hope thats ok. Mion ( talk) 23:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Honestly, I do not understand why my link to Open World Forum has been removed in the external links. This is the only Open Source event for decision makers, not for profit, supported by all large Open Source communities : OSI, Apache, Eclipse, Linux Foundation, OW2. This is the only event of this kind, gathering all the Open Source decision makers worldwide. By the way, Florence Devouard was a speaker at the 2009 Edition... Much more relevant than other links such as ' http://www.askmar.com/open.html'... ;-) If you need more information, please check http://www.openworldforum.org/about or contact me. Best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by JCS2050 ( talk • contribs) 23:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I recently added an external link to Open World Forum, that has been removed. Honestly, I do not understand why it was removed. This is the only Open Source event for decision makers worldwide, not for profit, supported by all large Open Source communities : OSI, Apache, Eclipse, Linux Foundation, OW2, Qualipso... This is the only event of this kind, gathering most key Open Source decision makers from all over the world. Just check the 'About' and the Program Committe list : http://www.openworldforum.org/about. By the way, Florence Devouard was a speaker at the 2009 Edition... This link seems to me much more relevant than other accepted links such as ' http://www.askmar.com/open.html'... or others ;-) If you need more information, please contact me. I will be happy to provide more information to demonstrate this link should be added. ;-) Best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by JCS2050 ( talk • contribs) 23:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The article lead states "not to be confused with free software" but the category deletion debate defines it both as software and as free software. Then there also is the open source software article that does refer to software suggesting it is not one and the same thing after all. I'm not sure anymore but it seems to me that the buzz word Open Source (at least theoretically) applies to all fields where patents and intellectual property are involved? I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia categories to re-request a category:Open source I think the same logic should apply to the category and the article name space. 84.104.135.141 ( talk) 15:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Kit cars are the metaphor for open source.
Building a kit car offers extensive modularity in construction, absolute flexibility in parallel construction and hey, adding new and crazy ideas in as you go is no problem .
testing- well it really is in the REAL world. Just don’t be in front of me and brake all of a sudden
Those big manufacturers are just evil dudes. Just because they spend a few hundred million to produce a quality and stabilised product that shouldn’t mean they can keep the patented design ideas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.130.73.66 ( talk) 08:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article carry some mention of the Debian Project? The Open Source Definition did, after all, start out as an exact copy of the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In my opinion, the DFSG formed the *meaning* of the term Open Source which is more important than which words were attached to that definition. Ean Schuessler ( talk) 22:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
So, if i use some open ource software. lets say some free one to make a game. would that mean that the game i made is also automatically under open source? or can people copyright material made from open software? Gman124 talk 15:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
As the new Java upgrade is proving, IP can force companies to try to squeeze a very large person into a very small swimsuit. If it were an open source library, everyone could pick and choose the tools they need for their particular application, but as no-one can inspect IP source code, the pig in the poke, the entire library, has to be both sent and received. This makes for huge software bloat, a problem which has been a growing (ba-doom-boom) problem for something like twenty or thirty years now. The other effect is limiting the size of the library, which could otherwise be as large as the user-base, which has a positive-feedback effect, if you think about it. Thus the addition of the "Diseconomy of scale" link. I've been a fan of that part of WP for a while now, and it's paying off. If you think of everyone who handles Java in any way as being part of one huge organization, then you see that it's not just a very large organization, it is compartmentalized by IP. This is what makes the whole problem so bad, and this applies to -all- IP software, in an environment that all but guarantees further bloat. --TheLastWordSword-- 74.41.81.126 ( talk) 01:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
"Coffee: capsule-based beverage systems such as Nestle's Nespresso or Krups' Tassimo turn home-brewed coffee from an inherently "open-source" beverage into a product limited by the specific range of capsules made available by the system manufacturers." is not a description of anything open source as such, and if this is to be included, then that opens the floodgates; can we please remove this? David Woodward ☮ ♡♢☞☽ 14:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
So what about hyphenation with open source?
Should be discussed. I find that when saying:
"This program is open source", a hyphen is not needed.
But when saying:
"This program is open-source software", a hyphen IS required. Same goes for "open-ended discussion", but in that case, "open-ended" is always hyphenated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.87.145 ( talk) 14:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC) 88.112.87.145 ( talk) 14:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
The Media section begins with "open source" in its first line under the heading so to speak. Shouldn't the O in open source be capitalized? Not picking, but thought I would contribute to y'alls wiki as I've been absent for awhile.
It is located here. -- Coffeehound ( talk) 23:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
There are a lot of articles in Category:Free software culture and documents which don't relate to free software at all. I'd like to re-create Category:Open source to house these and other related articles, and include subcategories like Category:Open content. This category was removed in 2006 after this discussion. – Pnm ( talk) 02:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The current list is quite long, goes against the WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and is also quite arbitrary in what is on it. If noone objects, I will prune the list, maybe do a summery like in the Free Software#Examples of free software. Including a list of best-known examples can be useful to the reader, but a very long list will not benefit the reader, and will only invite bad edits where someone want to add their favorite software/product/stuff to the list. Belorn ( talk) 16:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The current text that "In production and development, open source is a philosophy,[
1][
2] or pragmatic methodology[2] that promotes free redistribution and access to an end product's design and implementation details" is quite unsupported given that both cite 1 and 2 do not make any statement to support the claim that open source is either a philosophy or a pragmatic methodology. Source 1 (Ubuntu) states that open source is:
collective power in action. The power of a worldwide community of highly skilled experts that build, share and improve the very latest software together - then make it available to everyone.
Out of this, there is at best some implied/indirect support of some hinted philosophy, or pragmatic methodology, but same could be said about Collective bargaining which is neither described as a philosophy, or pragmatic methodology. If one would dare to guess the intended message, I suspect Ubuntu want to describe the effect and result of open source.
The second source (android), is describing the android philosophy, which in turn states:
Android is intentionally and explicitly an open-source -- as opposed to free software -- effort: a group of organizations with shared needs has pooled resources to collaborate on a single implementation of a shared product. The Android philosophy is pragmatic, first and foremost. The objective is a shared product that each contributor can tailor and customize.
It is of course free to interpretation, but from my point of view it looks like they say that Android is the result from the open source community, not the free software community. If they had wanted to say "The Open Source philosophy is pragmatic", they would had said that and not "The Android philosophy is pragmatic". In the end this leave me with the impression that neither those sources are directly supporting the claim that: open source is a philosophy/pragmatic methodology. Instead the only reliable source we got is the OSI open source definition, which is describing software licensed under specific distribution terms. Belorn ( talk) 00:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Android in it current use and regulations on mobile phones
The "Economic analysis" section opens with "Most economists agree that open-source candidates have an information good" and lists citation 14 as "Grandstand, 1999". Searching Google for '"information good" Grandstand 1999' returns nothing relevant. Is there a better citation for this statement? Greensencha ( talk) 06:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Ubuntu 11.04.png, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Ubuntu 11.04.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC) |
As it stands, the article is very heavily weighted towards "open source" in its technology-related meaning, specifically with regard to computing and software. While that's accurate in the sense that this is by far the most common use of the term today, we already have a separate article for open-source software (OSS). Imo, this article should focus on the history and use of the term in all known senses and leave the details about OSS to that other article.
The history section in particular needs to go into more detail about the origin of the term and its use generally, especially in non-technological contexts. For example, the 1982 edition of the World Factbook says, at the beginning of its entry about the United States (page 244, emphasis mine), "This 'Factsheet' on the US is provided solely as a service to those wishing to make rough comparisons of foreign country data with a US 'yardstick.' Information is from US open sources and publications and in no sense represents estimates by the US Intelligence Community." Clearly the term was in use back in 1982 in the general sense of freely available and distributed information. I imagine the term probably predates that.
So, basically, if anyone's out there who knows more about this, it would be good to have more detailed information about the etymology and usage of the term in this article. -- Hux ( talk) 03:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
There is currently two sections both trying to take on the history of the term open source. One is called History, the other Society and culture. Both is mostly/all unsourced in the regards of any information which dates back before 1998 and thus the creation of the open source movement. I could do a free hand rewrite of it, but without sources it would be better to start with an open discussion first.
My first thought would be to rewrite History section to simply start talking about free sharing of technological information, and then let the term open-source be used after the events of 1998 has been described. For Society and culture section, the history of monetization of culture could be a good choice for subjects pre-1998, and open-source culture for post-1998. Belorn ( talk) 07:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
This is still a problem, added a "cleanup-merge" tag. -- Beland ( talk) 16:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
References
The article lacks economic content. At least a brief independent section on the economics of open source should be included, established financing practices, project costs, estimated social benefits, state of wages (not all participants are income stalled, right?)... djb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.50.141 ( talk) 01:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)