![]() | 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 | Archive 4 |
While I believe this article needs a complete rewrite to remove the deep-seeded pov, it seems completely non NPOV to describe proprietary software as the antonym of free software. That proprietary software has significant restrictions imposed on the user, and how those restrictions are enforced is most definitely not the definition of proprietary software.
It is for these reasons and more that this article is pov-laden. I'm gonna work on fixing it. Cheers. Ardent †alk ∈ 15:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Software cannot be "owned". Authors don't "own" books. That's not the distinction of proprietary software. The distinction is to use copyright and patent law to restrict the software. Free software uses copyright--and even patents in rare cases--to provide freedoms to use, copy and modify the software. So "ownership" can't provide a distinction here.
Your other edits to the intro are unobjectionable, although I'm not sure what specifity you are adding by using words like " closed source" or " non-proprietary software", but then objecting to giving free software as the antyonym to proprietary software. -- 69.54.29.23 18:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I still think the intro provides a definition to proprietary that makes it indistinct from free software. Shouldn't it? -- 69.54.29.23 18:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, free software is very much not characterised by the "exclusive ownership of rights by an individual or group" as far as I would interpret it, unless the group was generalized to everyone everywhere. Or am I completely missing the point? Ardent †alk ∈ 18:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
In the case of copyleft free software, copyright is indeed used by a group or individual to ensure the software remains free software. -- 69.54.29.23 18:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
This is true, however the rest of the intro negates the possibility of copyleft free software coming under the heading of proprietary software. Additionally saying that substantial restrictions are imposed upon the user wouldn't help to differentiate proprietary from copyleft, as many people (namely proprietary distributors) would see the copyleft restrictions as very substantial. Ardent †alk ∈ 19:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the similarity in having some restrictions with free software, I'm additionally talking about the use of copyright in the same way. -- Ashawley 19:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I've aimed at getting the nuances correct in the definitions and explaination found in the article's intro, rather than aiming for POV issues. The latter made the article less than accurate in my opinion, in addition to the confusion admitted in the discussions above. However, if there are POV issues, let them be known. -- 75.68.201.229 16:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to whoever removed the NPOV tag, but this article is still very one-sided, full of weasel words, and needs a re-think in terms of organisation to get rid of the inherent POV. Ardent †alk ∈ 09:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The term "proprietary software" is not well-known enough to offset people's association of the word "proprietary" with it's literal dictionary/legal meaning. Thus, people get confused about what the topic of this article is. So how about changing the title to "Non-free software"? This has the same meaning, and is accepted and also used by Stallman etc. Objections/comments? Gronky 13:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Anyone got an idea of when the term "closed source" was first used? Thanks. -- Gronky 12:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Software hoarding is a separate article that refers to a single pejorative term used chiefly by one individual (RMS). It should probably be folded in and given a brief mention here. White 720 20:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
C'mon guys... This page is so heavily anti-closed source that I am now convinced that Stallman is the primary contributor.
If you would rather fix the page than change the title, here are some suggestions:
--Change the first paragraph to:
>>Proprietary software (also called closed-source software) is any software that is owned by a single person or company, who can subsequently make available (or license) the software to other people or companies. This license usually allows for full use of the software in question, but discourages (or makes impossible) modifications to the functionality of the software. It also discourages (or again, makes impossible) a code-level knowledge of the inner workings and functionality of the software.
--Relocate criticisms of proprietary software to a section called "Criticisms of Proprietary Software"
Unfortunately, this leaves us with a very small article. So we have to ask what this article should be trying to teach people. Is the purpose to:
>Point out the flaws of proprietary software >Give the advantages of proprietary software
I personally believe that the purpose should be neither. Wikipedia is supposed to maintain neutrality. Saying that putting advantages and disadvantages on the same page is neutral is akin to saying that a person who has one foot in a bucket of ice and the other foot in a puddle of lava is comfortable. The two do not, in other words, balance each other out.
That said, it seems to be accepted as "fair" to have a criticisms section of some Wikipedia Articles. Therefore, I propose that we structure the article as such:
>Definition (see above, what I would change first paragraph to)
>Examples of entirely proprietary software >>Explain what makes software completely proprietary (i.e., no free software whatsoever). >>List of 10-12 software items.
>Example of somewhat proprietary software >>Explain what makes software somewhat proprietary (i.e., proprietary software based on free software). >>List of 10-12 software items.
>Criticism of proprietary software >>Explain how free software philosophy comes into conflict with proprietary software, and leave it at that. Do not mention any specific entities. Save that for the "See Also".
>See also
The point being that we effectively change a paragraph such as:
A variety of activation or licence management systems are emerging in proprietary software that prevent copyright infringement and determine how the software is used. If the proprietor ceases to exist or for any other reason does not provide keys for activation or to unlock discontinued products, legitimate users can be unable to re-activate existing software or use other hardware.
into
A variety of license management/enforcement systems are sometimes used in proprietary software that help to prevent criminal copyright infringement and determine how the software can be used based on the terms of the license agreement between the licensor and the licensee.
In effect, we relocate the part that casts a negative light on activation into the "Criticisms" paragraph and we are left with a completely neutral, informative statement.
Tell me what you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.13.2 ( talk) 02:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
As much as I do like free software and I use Linux myself, I agree; this article is too biased against proprietary software and needs revising. Akiratheoni 21:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Proprietary software is software with restrictions on copying and modifying as enforced by the proprietor. Restrictions on modification and copying are sought by either legal or technical means and sometimes both. Technical means include releasing machine-readable binaries to users and withholding the human-readable source code. Legal means can involve software licensing, copyright, and patent law.
This article is strongly biased towards people in the free software movement. There are more statements related to the free-software side than the proprietary-software side. This is illogical as this article is titled "Proprietary software." Both sides' opinions need to be clearly expressed. Dragon 280 ( talk) 18:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I added a few extra headers for your convenience and to encourage editing. I really can't do these major edits myself. :( Dragon 280 ( talk) 18:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The whole article should be rewritten, the only thing the article succeed with is to clarify and amplify the stand of a single organisation (FSF). buran ( talk) 10:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
This article is very contradictory. It opens claiming proprietary software has restrictions on the ability to modify, then claims it to be a synonym to closed software, passing over all points on editing the actual product and reverse engineering. The general structure also ignores the idea of licensing against ownership, not making a point as to whether proprietary software is simply a binary blob with no restrictions that the consumer owns, or software with a clear outline of use in the form of a license. It makes numerous comparisons that are simply wrong, or intended to make this article wrong, and either needs completely deleting, or rewritten. I don't think there is need for discussion of the fine points, or whether it is wrong, because hardly any of the content can stay. -- Jimmi Hugh ( talk) 17:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll clear everything and put it under construction. Dragon 280 ( talk) 18:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I've just merged closed source software and semi-free software in here. Lots of work to be done tidying it up, but better one untidy article on the subject than three. Chris Cunningham ( talk) 12:37, 14 January 2008 (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 | Archive 4 |
While I believe this article needs a complete rewrite to remove the deep-seeded pov, it seems completely non NPOV to describe proprietary software as the antonym of free software. That proprietary software has significant restrictions imposed on the user, and how those restrictions are enforced is most definitely not the definition of proprietary software.
It is for these reasons and more that this article is pov-laden. I'm gonna work on fixing it. Cheers. Ardent †alk ∈ 15:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Software cannot be "owned". Authors don't "own" books. That's not the distinction of proprietary software. The distinction is to use copyright and patent law to restrict the software. Free software uses copyright--and even patents in rare cases--to provide freedoms to use, copy and modify the software. So "ownership" can't provide a distinction here.
Your other edits to the intro are unobjectionable, although I'm not sure what specifity you are adding by using words like " closed source" or " non-proprietary software", but then objecting to giving free software as the antyonym to proprietary software. -- 69.54.29.23 18:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I still think the intro provides a definition to proprietary that makes it indistinct from free software. Shouldn't it? -- 69.54.29.23 18:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, free software is very much not characterised by the "exclusive ownership of rights by an individual or group" as far as I would interpret it, unless the group was generalized to everyone everywhere. Or am I completely missing the point? Ardent †alk ∈ 18:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
In the case of copyleft free software, copyright is indeed used by a group or individual to ensure the software remains free software. -- 69.54.29.23 18:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
This is true, however the rest of the intro negates the possibility of copyleft free software coming under the heading of proprietary software. Additionally saying that substantial restrictions are imposed upon the user wouldn't help to differentiate proprietary from copyleft, as many people (namely proprietary distributors) would see the copyleft restrictions as very substantial. Ardent †alk ∈ 19:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the similarity in having some restrictions with free software, I'm additionally talking about the use of copyright in the same way. -- Ashawley 19:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I've aimed at getting the nuances correct in the definitions and explaination found in the article's intro, rather than aiming for POV issues. The latter made the article less than accurate in my opinion, in addition to the confusion admitted in the discussions above. However, if there are POV issues, let them be known. -- 75.68.201.229 16:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to whoever removed the NPOV tag, but this article is still very one-sided, full of weasel words, and needs a re-think in terms of organisation to get rid of the inherent POV. Ardent †alk ∈ 09:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The term "proprietary software" is not well-known enough to offset people's association of the word "proprietary" with it's literal dictionary/legal meaning. Thus, people get confused about what the topic of this article is. So how about changing the title to "Non-free software"? This has the same meaning, and is accepted and also used by Stallman etc. Objections/comments? Gronky 13:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Anyone got an idea of when the term "closed source" was first used? Thanks. -- Gronky 12:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Software hoarding is a separate article that refers to a single pejorative term used chiefly by one individual (RMS). It should probably be folded in and given a brief mention here. White 720 20:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
C'mon guys... This page is so heavily anti-closed source that I am now convinced that Stallman is the primary contributor.
If you would rather fix the page than change the title, here are some suggestions:
--Change the first paragraph to:
>>Proprietary software (also called closed-source software) is any software that is owned by a single person or company, who can subsequently make available (or license) the software to other people or companies. This license usually allows for full use of the software in question, but discourages (or makes impossible) modifications to the functionality of the software. It also discourages (or again, makes impossible) a code-level knowledge of the inner workings and functionality of the software.
--Relocate criticisms of proprietary software to a section called "Criticisms of Proprietary Software"
Unfortunately, this leaves us with a very small article. So we have to ask what this article should be trying to teach people. Is the purpose to:
>Point out the flaws of proprietary software >Give the advantages of proprietary software
I personally believe that the purpose should be neither. Wikipedia is supposed to maintain neutrality. Saying that putting advantages and disadvantages on the same page is neutral is akin to saying that a person who has one foot in a bucket of ice and the other foot in a puddle of lava is comfortable. The two do not, in other words, balance each other out.
That said, it seems to be accepted as "fair" to have a criticisms section of some Wikipedia Articles. Therefore, I propose that we structure the article as such:
>Definition (see above, what I would change first paragraph to)
>Examples of entirely proprietary software >>Explain what makes software completely proprietary (i.e., no free software whatsoever). >>List of 10-12 software items.
>Example of somewhat proprietary software >>Explain what makes software somewhat proprietary (i.e., proprietary software based on free software). >>List of 10-12 software items.
>Criticism of proprietary software >>Explain how free software philosophy comes into conflict with proprietary software, and leave it at that. Do not mention any specific entities. Save that for the "See Also".
>See also
The point being that we effectively change a paragraph such as:
A variety of activation or licence management systems are emerging in proprietary software that prevent copyright infringement and determine how the software is used. If the proprietor ceases to exist or for any other reason does not provide keys for activation or to unlock discontinued products, legitimate users can be unable to re-activate existing software or use other hardware.
into
A variety of license management/enforcement systems are sometimes used in proprietary software that help to prevent criminal copyright infringement and determine how the software can be used based on the terms of the license agreement between the licensor and the licensee.
In effect, we relocate the part that casts a negative light on activation into the "Criticisms" paragraph and we are left with a completely neutral, informative statement.
Tell me what you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.13.2 ( talk) 02:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
As much as I do like free software and I use Linux myself, I agree; this article is too biased against proprietary software and needs revising. Akiratheoni 21:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Proprietary software is software with restrictions on copying and modifying as enforced by the proprietor. Restrictions on modification and copying are sought by either legal or technical means and sometimes both. Technical means include releasing machine-readable binaries to users and withholding the human-readable source code. Legal means can involve software licensing, copyright, and patent law.
This article is strongly biased towards people in the free software movement. There are more statements related to the free-software side than the proprietary-software side. This is illogical as this article is titled "Proprietary software." Both sides' opinions need to be clearly expressed. Dragon 280 ( talk) 18:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I added a few extra headers for your convenience and to encourage editing. I really can't do these major edits myself. :( Dragon 280 ( talk) 18:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The whole article should be rewritten, the only thing the article succeed with is to clarify and amplify the stand of a single organisation (FSF). buran ( talk) 10:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
This article is very contradictory. It opens claiming proprietary software has restrictions on the ability to modify, then claims it to be a synonym to closed software, passing over all points on editing the actual product and reverse engineering. The general structure also ignores the idea of licensing against ownership, not making a point as to whether proprietary software is simply a binary blob with no restrictions that the consumer owns, or software with a clear outline of use in the form of a license. It makes numerous comparisons that are simply wrong, or intended to make this article wrong, and either needs completely deleting, or rewritten. I don't think there is need for discussion of the fine points, or whether it is wrong, because hardly any of the content can stay. -- Jimmi Hugh ( talk) 17:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll clear everything and put it under construction. Dragon 280 ( talk) 18:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I've just merged closed source software and semi-free software in here. Lots of work to be done tidying it up, but better one untidy article on the subject than three. Chris Cunningham ( talk) 12:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)