Talk:Free and open-source software

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeFree and open-source software was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 25, 2007Articles for deletionKept
May 26, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Merging Open Source Software into Free and Open Source Software[edit]

I propose to merge Open Source Software into this article. "Open Source" software is yet another name for Free Software. Free and Open Source Software could be the one article to cover the topic (instead of now three) and could also explain all the different names. DCEvoCE (talk) 12:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Support. I see you changed opinion though.--Kozuch (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. It is a bit more than different names. "Free software" implies that it is Open Source AND approved by the Free Software Foundation as "free". For example look at the comment on their own website [1], and also a much stronger comment by Linus who fundamentally does not want to refer to Linux as "Free Software" [2]. The articles need to be kept separated - free software is more of a philosophy/policy based around open source, open source is more of a technical thing.--Sir Anon (talk) 09:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
You wrote that "Free software" would imply that it would have to be Open Source AND approved by the Free Software Foundation as "free". That is not the case. Free software is software that is licensed under a(ny) free software license that do provide you with the four freedoms of free software, such as the GPL. "Open source" is just another word or label for free software. DCEvoCE (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
The difference of FOSS and Open Source is in the detail. So it should not be merged. There are many special cases of opens source like FOSS, but including all into one article will increase open source to one article with to many sections. FOSS is now poorly written and many details missing. Abreviation FOSS is used different. Neutral for a synonym, like Open Source. As a key word for an aggreement (special rules different to Open Source and GPL) which tried the writer to express in a not good style (ad). Do not merge, article needs repair. Dieter --62.158.109.141 (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
DCEvoCE - as you said, "Open source" is just one of the criteria of "Free software". The articles as they are do need clarification on this and a clean up, but a merge is unjustified.--Sir Anon (talk) 05:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. This has been a long time coming. We have far too many overlapping articles on free software already, and consolidation is a good idea. There is insufficient concrete difference between the terms to warrant so many separate articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, per Dieter, Mion (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Cant see "Dieter" anywhere near here.--Kozuch (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose FOSS is quite different than either free or pure open source. RedChihuahua (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Support these mergers have to fairly note the differences, but having three or more articles on each area of the FOSS movement is ridiculous, as well as being confusing to the typical Wikipedia reader. Most people find the distinctions minimal. Lentower (talk) 04:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose There is a massive diffrence between free and open source software. IE is free but it will never be open souce. Spudinator (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
IE is a freeware, but definitelly not a free software.--Kozuch (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Many people call "freeware" (gratis software) -> "free software"... in fact, freeware is just free+software (yeah, I know quite well the diference, I just think the definition of "free software" should not be dicated by the FSF). Freedom means different things for different people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.113.223 (talkcontribs) 03:04, 25 January 2009
Unless something has changed, IE is not even freeware: you must own a Windows license to have a right to use it. --AVRS (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. Clarified the distinction in the fourth paragraph, beginning "Today the terms...". As more background, Stallman created "free software", Raymond and friends created "open source", business created "commercial open source", and the "community" have since reclaimed the common ground from all of the above by putting Stallman and Raymond together by shotgun marriage with common use of "free [libre] open source software". See para 4 of article for more. Reliablesources 19:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC) 19:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
oppose - there is already a detailed, referenced article for the various alternative terms that were later tacked onto free software, it's at: alternative terms for free software. Gronky (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Comment: The article Community distribution has been nominated for deletion via WP:PROD. Editors of this article might want to consider merging it too or making it a redirect. It currently consists of 3 paragraphs and 2 lists. Coppertwig (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
oppose Per above, two distinctly different topics. They both stand fine on their own. 128.113.228.19 (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree that these articles should be merged. Nicole Sharp (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Misc.[edit]

You should choose a new screenshot image, there's a typo in it (calander > calendar). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.53.139 (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Free and open-source software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Move to FLOSS[edit]

It would be better to move this page to FLOSS instead of being under the FOSS name. FLOSS is more neutral as it clearly marks the differences between free, open source and price. Filiprino (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe that FOSS is the WP:COMMONNAME here. While I've nothing fundamentally against Richard Stallman (and even exchanged emails with him a very long time ago, providing patches for some bugs in Emacs and other GNU things, before GNU was so widely known), I see FLOSS as being more something which is pushing his philosophical and political agenda. There are certainly things to be admired about what RMS & FSF have achieved, and their enduring commitment to software freedom, but many of their positions are loaded with POV to varying extents. FLOSS and FOSS asserts that FLOSS is more neutral, but it is from a non-neutral source which clearly states that neutrality is not one of their goals in the same article. I see FLOSS as marginally less neutral because of that, although that does not really matter here. The key thing is which is the more common or widespread usage, which I believe is FOSS. Can you supply evidence that FLOSS is more commonly or widely used than FOSS in neutral (i.e. not FSF or similar) sources? Murph9000 (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Considering adding a paragraph "critique" from the Journal of Peer Production[edit]

To the people watching this article,

After having read this paper by Christopher Kelty (the anthropologist of software) that happens to be a scientific publication published under a "public domain" licensing policy, I consider adding a paragraph "critique" (or whatever more appropriate term anyone may see fit) by basically extracting whole chunks of his article (namely paragraphs 13 to 16), as I believe it provides a sound account of why FOSS in the 2010s may be viewed as irreconciliable. Of course it would need work to achieve "encyclopedic tone" and NPOV, but I do believe that it is here a rare instance where it would be both relevant and not a copyvio to import a text instead of paraphrasing summarizing or even merely quoting it. Before I actually try to do it, I'm asking the opinion of anyone interested. --Alexandre Hocquet (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Free and open-source software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

not NPOV/original research[edit]

these statements are not NPOV and/or constitute original research:

By defying ownership regulations in the construction and use of information − a key area of contemporary growth − the Free/Open Source Software (FOSS) movement counters neoliberalism and privatization in general.[97]

By realizing the historical potential of an "economy of abundance" for the new digital world FOSS may lay down a plan for political resistance or show the way towards a potential transformation of capitalism.[97]

seems fine to attribute statements like this to third parties, but as written they look like statements of fact, when they are opinions/analysis that emerge from the page authors. They should either be referred to via quotations from third parties, or removed. there are other statements of this sort on this page that have similar problems. Mr H3vnu83987 (talk) 13:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 October 2017[edit]

189.170.52.205 (talk) 09:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2018[edit]

196.69.67.237 (talk) 10:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.—J. M. (talk) 11:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

how is "Infringes on user's civil liberties and human rights" a drawback of FOSS to proprietary software?[edit]

this may be a problem with my understanding of english language, which is not my mother tongue. all the paragraphs in "drawback to proprietary software" describe disadvantages of FOSS compared to proprietary software.

Security and user-support, Hardware and software compatibility, Bugs and missing features, Less guarantees of development, Missing applications, Technical skills and user-friendliness all list things where FOSS is at a disadvantage.

as a result, it looks like the phrase "Infringes on user's civil liberties and human rights" is also talking about a disadvantage of FOSS compared to proprietary software, as in "FOSS would infringe on users rights" whereas proprietary software would not. a careful reading of that paragraph makes clear that this is not the case. the paragraph is instead talking about a disadvantage of proprietary software, and an advantage of FOSS.

given that all other paragraphs in this section are about FOSS disadvantages, i feel that this paragraph about human rights is better placed in the section above as an advantage of FOSS.

i found this issue because i had asked my team to research FOSS so they could learn about it, and when i asked them "what are the disadvantages of FOSS" they came back with the answer that FOSS infringes on human rights. 61.187.123.141 (talk) 06:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the contradictory section. The editor who put it in probably misinterpreted the "Drawbacks to proprietary software" section as "Drawbacks of proprietary software". In any case, the content is already covered at Free and open-source software § Personal control, customizability and freedom. Thanks for bringing up this issue! — Newslinger talk 16:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)