I do not see any copyright statement on the OSI website. Particularly, there is no notice that the OSD has been released to the public domain, or under the GNU FDL or a similar license.
The document in question is derived from a document of the Debian distribution available at http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines . It contains the statement Other organizations may derive from and build on this document. Please give credit to the Debian project if you do. - Bruce Perens
The webpage at http://www.opensource.org/index.php contains this text, The contents of this website are licensed under the Open Software License 2.1 or Academic Free License 2.1 at the bottom of that page. - Bevo 16:39, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
probably should be taken into account here. It is not so much a copyright issue, but one of having enough to write. The text itself should be linked to (or put on Wikisource if you feel that strongly). This may sound harsh, but if removing the source text turns the article into a stub, the article probably needs to be deleted and have its text merged into another article. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Free software definition (FSF) vs Open source software definition(OSI)
2nd and 3rd criteria of OSI meet freedom 1 and 3 of FSF
1st criteria of OSI meets freedom 2 of FSF
So, IMHO, every open source software is free software, too. However, FSF states "nearly all open source software is free", it means "exist open source software is not free".
Any idea? If such software actually exists, please give examples and explain what is wrong with my idea.
Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Then could it be italicised in the title (as it is in the first external reference), so people aren't fooled into thinking it's just another wrongly upcased generic phrase? Tony(talk) 12:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Support. This article pertains to a specific definition of open-source named the OSD, not a general definition of open-source; therefore, the title is a proper noun and must be capitalized. — Dgtsyb (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
As long as it's italicised, the "The" can be dropped per TITLE and MOS, and we can flag to readers that the absence of the hyphen (breaking normal rules) has survived, because it's someone else's title. Tony(talk) 03:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC) Clearly it is included in the original title. Still waiting on the italicisation bit. Tony(talk) 04:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.