Talk:Proprietary software

Replacement lead

I'd like feedback on this proposed lead:

Proprietary software is computer software licensed under exclusive legal right of its owner. The purchaser, or licensee, is given the right to use the software under certain circumstances, but restricted from other uses, such as modification, further distribution, or reverse engineering.

Complementary terms include public domain software, which is not subject to copyright and can be used for any purpose, and free software, licensed by the owner under more permissive terms. Many proponents of free and open source software including Richard Stallman use proprietary or non-free to describe software that doesn't meet their criteria for free or open source, though specific definitions vary.

--Pnm (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hearing nothing for three days, I'll go boldly. I removed this potentially useful source, not referenced elsewhere in the article:

• David A. Wheeler (2009-02-03). "Free-Libre / Open Source Software (FLOSS) is Commercial Software". http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/commercial-floss.html. Retrieved 2009-06-03. 

--Pnm (talk) 04:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice work. Indeed, a "negative definition" (what something is not) is indeed more confusing to understand. There was a "positive definition" on this page about a year ago, and it had references as well. Perhaps you could look at it to see if it's worth adding any of it back? --Ashawley (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Poor examples

The current list of examples is: Microsoft Windows, Adobe Flash Player, PS3 OS, iTunes, Adobe Photoshop, Google Earth, Mac OS X, Skype, WinZip, and some versions of Unix. I think this is far from comprehensive, and should be both consistent in naming and provide a better mix of software (at the moment, it includes 4 OSes and no games software). I added Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 as an example based on its popularity, but it was removed. Feel free to suggest a more popular recent game. It's also worth adding that Skype is no longer completely proprietary and as such should probably be removed. -62.30.219.79 (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

What has changed about Skype?

I don't think completely proprietary is meaningful. Parts of all software are non-proprietary for example, having menus, having a Save command, or having context help. --Pnm (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Closed source software

The article currently defines "closed source software" as "software distributed without its source code." However, per the Open Source Definition (which is the definition our article on Open-source software uses), "open source doesn't just mean access to the source code." If we take "closed source" to be the antonym of "open source", then, it would follow that it's possible for software to be "closed source" while still providing access to the source. Would it be easier to state that "closed source" software is simply software that does not meet the OSD (while mentioning that this category overlaps significantly with "proprietary software")? abwayax (contribs, talk) 05:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Syntactically, defining closed-source software as "software that doesn't meet the Open Source Definition" is unspecific, circular, and negative. (By negative, I mean saying what it isn't, instead of saying what it is.) Semantically it's a catch-all, instead of leaving space for software to be neither closed-source nor open-source, as in a phrase like "not completely open-source."

Further, the OSD doesn't define "closed source," so this article can maintain consistency, while using the term precisely and in its common-sense way. (Writing "Proprietary software is sometimes called closed-source" would be equally correct, but I think it's better to leave the common-sense definition in place.) --Pnm (talk) 07:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

+1 for not using the current wording ("closed source" as meaning "without provided source code"). The expression "closed source" is obviously meant as an opposite of the expression "open source" (no-one would use "closed source" if it were not for the existence of "open source"), thereby implicitely giving a false definition of the term "open source" (as if it just means "comes with source code").Nicolas Barbier (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Defining closed source doesn't implicitly define open source. And again, based on the definition "software provided without source code," software could be neither closed source nor open source.

It's clear the statement is original research. I removed it from the article. Has anyone located high-quality, reliable sources that discuss the etymologies from a neutral perspective? --Pnm (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-free in lead

There's a sentence in the lead about non-free, which summarizes a paragraph in Proprietary software#Legal_meanings_and_licensing, recently modified in this edit. It's misleading to call the criteria "standard" because there are multiple sets of criteria. It's also a bit misleading to link to free software because the statement applies both to free and open source. I tried a simpler version. It doesn't point out the fact that there are multiple sets of criteria, but hopefully it's helpful but less contentious. If more is going to be said in the lead, it should probably be added to the main body, too. --Pnm (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Removing citation needed tags

I addressed two inline citation requests by rewording the sentences to remove claims of "commonly" and "usually," leaving what I believe are uncontroversial facts. Please see my edit to review. – Pnm (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Concerns

This article is in a very bad state, for several reasons:

• NPOV: If it written from the perspective of free software / open source (sorry, but it is)
• Unclear/biased definition: The article seems to somewhat state that "Proprietary software is any software that fails to be "free software" or "open source software" " - I'm pretty sure people distributing so called "proprietary software" don't use that wording most of the time, neither users (instead using "commercial software" or "freeware" / "free software" when the software is gratis)
• Few (none?) reliable sources directly discussing what proprietary software is
• Original research and/or synthesis: The first reference, for example, links to an Apple EULA, but there is no mention there of "proprietary software"
• Proprietary formats/protocols: Many many "proprietary software" (closed source) programs don't use so called "proprietary formats". It is also perfectly possible for an open source program to read/write, for example, formats subject to patents (called "proprietary" by some). It should also be noted the article Proprietary format is also immensely biased.
• "Proprietary software is said to create greater commercial activity over free software, especially in regard to market revenues." - really??? Clearly biased and WP:WEASEL wording. In addition to that, it is pretty much common knowledge that proprietary/closed/commercial software generates much greater revenue. Even people like Richard Stallman (commonly considered on a more "extreme" side) perfectly admit this.
• In conclusion, the entire article is written in a certain POV against "proprietary software", so it is hard to pinpoint specific problems.
• "Richard Stallman says that proprietary software commonly contains "malicious features, such as spying on the users, restricting the users, back doors, and imposed upgrades" Really??? - I'm pretty suspicious of that claim, and I highly doubt it. Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof (see WP:BURDEN). In addition, how can a man who thinks "proprietary software" is "evil", "user-subjugating" and something that "shackles" users be even considered as a proper reference?

Don't get me wrong, I perfectly admit I sympathize with the concepts of free software / open source, and I have no connection to any "software industry", but I can see this is clearly biased. --SF007 (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The critics of proprietary software, who I think invented the term, use it pejoratively. On the other hand those who create proprietary software - the software industry – commercialize their products largely by exercising these exclusive ownership rights. It seems like you want the article written from the industry's perspective, which wouldn't be right. It needs to balance these two major points of view, and any other important views on the subject.

The article does this in some ways. For example it follows RMS' view that commercial software contains malicious features with software vendors' view that closed-source means more secure, an open-source response to that view, and a description of the industry practice of disclosing source code to governments to address their security concerns. It may not achieve perfect balance, but it certainly includes both industry points of view and critical points of view, with the goal of allowing the reader to form a view of her/his own.

Here are responses to your substantive points:

• The article seems to somewhat state that "Proprietary software is any software that fails to be "free software" or "open source software".

  It attributes that definition to "proponents of free and open source software." There is a primary source reference of a prominent such entity. I think the statement as attributed is true. Is the problem that it's synth?

• "I'm pretty sure people distributing so called "proprietary software" don't use that wording most of the time, neither users (instead using "commercial software" or "freeware" / "free software" when the software is gratis)

  I agree, and that's an important point, but it's about usage, not definition. The article touches on the matter in Proprietary software#Pricing_and_economics, which links to commercial software, freeware, and free software. I added a brief mention to the lead.

• Few (none?) reliable sources directly discussing what proprietary software is

  Also a good point. There should be more secondary sources which directly address the definition. Stanford Law Review & Webster's Computer & Internet Dictionary are two which do.

• Original research and/or synthesis: The first reference, for example, links to an Apple EULA, but there is no mention there of "proprietary software"

  It was an improper use of the source so I removed it. I don't think the statement it had supported is likely to be challenged: "The licensee is given the right to use the software under certain conditions, while restricted from other uses, such as modification, further distribution, or reverse engineering."

• Many many "proprietary software" (closed source) programs don't use so called "proprietary formats".

  That is a missing point of view, but apart from text editors, HTML editors, web browsers, and some scientific software I'm hard-pressed to think of prominent examples.

• It is also perfectly possible for an open source program to read/write, for example, formats subject to patents (called "proprietary" by some).

  If some aspect of reading or writing the format is patented, it would be technically but not legally possible to do so without licensing the patent.

• It should also be noted the article Proprietary format is also immensely biased.

  Maybe so. I toned down the language and removed the dependence on that article's definition and the inline wikilinks. Also: [1]

• "Proprietary software is said to create greater commercial activity over free software, especially in regard to market revenues." - really? really??? Clearly biased and WP:WEASEL wording. In addition to that, it is pretty much common knowledge that proprietary/closed/commercial software generates much greater revenue. Even people like Richard Stallman (commonly considered on a more "extreme" side) perfectly admit this.

  Did you misread the sentence? It says proprietary software creates greater commercial opportunities and greater revenues. The sentence was weaselly and hardly brilliant, but surely you can see it was trying to say exactly what you're saying. It wasn't in the source, though. I removed the sentence and the citation. The perspective needs to be put back in, using a better source.

• "Richard Stallman says that proprietary software commonly contains "malicious features, such as spying on the users, restricting the users, back doors, and imposed upgrades" Really?????? - I'm pretty suspicious of that claim, and I highly doubt it. Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof (see WP:BURDEN).

  WP:REDFLAG seems to be the relevant section, which says "any exceptional claim requires high-quality sources." The quote is directly from an article RMS wrote and the ACM published, which is as reputable and high-quality as a source can be. It's hardly surprising that Stallman said this. It seems to meet the burden of evidence for an exceptional claim.

• In addition, how can a man who thinks "proprietary software" is "evil", "user-subjugating" and something that "shackles" users by even considered as a reference?

  His perspective belongs in the article because he's prominent critic. The article doesn't state his view as fact.

– Pnm (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)