Talk:Open source

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Computing / Software / FOSS (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Free and open-source software (marked as Top-importance).
WikiProject Open  (Inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.


This article contains material from Open source, Open-source license, Open-source software, and Open collaboration. bd2412 T 00:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

The simple English phrase "open source" can be found in books dating to the 1800s[edit]

Google search

Example: "It is for all those that its glance attracts, the principle of an originality, in some sort impersonal, the ceaselessly open source of great, new, and touching ideas, which, confounding themselves with their source, oblige the mind that has conceived ... Outlines of Theology (1865) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbm1058 (talkcontribs)

  • According to this Ngram, Twitter has been steadily declining in popularity for over a century. bd2412 T 00:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Origin Disputed[edit]

The current article claims that the OSI people first proposed the modern meaning of the term open source, however that is disputed. There is a mailing list post by Cadellera that used the term 2 years before the OSI people appear to claim to have invented it. See this article for details:

I've marked the section disputed for now, hopefully someone with more experience editing Wikipedia can rewrite it in a reasonable way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

So the only useful reference here is . However, note that the phrase is always "open source code", not "open source". It's more like "open source-code", not "open-source code". This single reference does not lead credence to the proposition that "open source", by itself, was a widely used term before OSI. I'm therefore removing the dispute tag. JordiGH (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


The phrase "open-source" is an adjective--a compound modifier--and therefore should be hyphenated. This phrase is not and cannot be a noun that stands on its own--not by this definition. See Oxford, Merriam-Webster, and other established dictionaries. (Oxford's contains a typo--they state that it is an adjective and hyphenate it in the sample sentence, but the term is lacking a hyphen--I brought that to their attention.) I cannot edit the title of this article but it too should be "Open-source". Even when the phrase is not followed by a noun, the noun is either ellipted (and understood), or is stated earlier in the sentence. It always stands for something like "open-source software", "open-source code", etc. For example: "Nowadays, more and more software products are open-source." [1] [2]Sukoch (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


That very may well be, but wikipedia follows the common usage, even if the common usage might technically be incorrect. - MrOllie (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Including information from opinionated paragraph(s)[edit]

@JasonCarswell: Please stop adding the opinionated sections from this edit back into the article. An article about open source is not a good place to discuss war profiteering. The frustrating thing is that there is some relevant information in there that I haven't managed to integrate (albeit coloured by the political issues you're most knowledgeable on); I would like to discuss ways of including this information in the article proper whilst remaining on-topic and conforming to Wikipedia's standards. wizzwizz4 (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wizzwizz4: So fix it, don't remove it. If you just keep resetting then it's not improving. I didn't reset it back to my original when I initiated and we created this new BCA (broad concept article) a year and a half ago. I improved it since then. You're not helping if you're not helping. I was not discussing war, but profiteering has one of the most critical impacts on the corruption of science and the obfuscation leading to scientism. Just because YOU "haven't managed to integrate" it doesn't mean someone else can't do it. I insist you roll back your edit and we can discuss a better way forward, breaking down every word and/or asking for assistance if needs be. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 06:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
@JasonCarswell: I didn't just reset it. But seeing as I'm not the only person who's (repeatedly) reverted the edits adding that paragraph, this version's probably a better consensus to build from. Did you really have to write

as well as the political lobbyists (a soft term for legalized bribery)


in a world where corporate corruption and status quo war profiteering are business as usual.

? I won't revert the article to a state where this text is in it; it's not relevant to the article. What specific, relevant information have I removed that should be in the article? I'm happy to return that, or you can. wizzwizz4 (talk) 08:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
@Wizzwizz4: Thanks for engaging. IMO the political bribery is absolutely fundamentally at the corrupting core of all our privatized scientific institutions thus necessitating a blind faith in scientism. I'm open to phrasing it differently, such as "political lobbyists, who some/many say/acknowledge is legal bribery,..." citations needed of course. I don't weasel words like "some say", and I prefer calling it a "soft term" because that's what propaganda spin does to make the medicine go down.
Regarding: "in a world where corporate corruption and status quo war profiteering are business as usual." I hardly think this is controversial, now nor through history, especially in the USA where half its budget is spend on its military, weapons manufacturing, and global "aid" (surpassing all other countries combined) - though I can see how some might object to "business as usual" when something like "commonplace" might suffice. Corporate corruption is VERY commonplace. In fact it's expected that all corporations externalize as much as possible, (as much as they can get away with - and more), to earn maximum profits for their shareholders. Watch The Corporation (2003 film) for the basics. This understanding that the world is violent and corrupt is at the fundamental core of objecting to potentially dangerous privatized science and scientism for profit in favour of authentic open science benefiting all. It's profoundly relevant to that part of the article. Try to change my mind. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
@JasonCarswell: That's the trouble – Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, nor is it for your personal opinion. Whilst I disagree that they're as fundamental as that, I agree that some of the things you've outlined play some effect – nonetheless, they're not statements about open source and they're not likely to be citable. Political lobbyists being a legal form of bribery should go on the article about lobbying – and, in fact, the very second paragraph of that article goes into quite a bit of detail about the ethical concerns. Lobbying in the United States contains pretty much all you've tried to say about lobbying in this article already – note that the specific off-topic things you've brought up are mostly US issues, which is a small part of why I've removed them with such prejudice.
A couple of these things aren't all that controversial, but they're all incredibly tangential. Nearly everything can be linked back to the things I am knowledgeable and passionate about, some of which are extremely important, but they're not actually related topics and I don't go around editing references to them into unrelated Wikipedia articles. Likewise, open source ≠ corporate corruption. An article about open source is not an article about contemporary US political issues. Open source exists in France, and Japan, and Ethiopia, which don't have “status quo war profiteering” (a phrase which, to be honest, I'm not actually certain of the meaning of). Just because these things are what leads you to care about open source, doesn't mean they are integral to the understanding of it. They're not. A sentence about lobbying with a link would be sufficient (though I'm not sure what that sentence would say, exactly). wizzwizz4 (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm now starting to realize where this terrible writing is coming from. Hyperbole and words to the effect of "it has been said" don't belong in an encyclopedia article.𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 02:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The success of open source[edit]

The fact that open source is used practically everywhere today really needs to be mentioned in the article's introduction: I have done just that with embedded devices added today; earlier had been other aspects with a link to the overall article on OS market share. I also noted the area in which it is not used as much (which is of course the PC market / Windows operating system). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Altanner1991 (talkcontribs) 02:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I have removed it because it is essentially all Linux rather than open source in general. Altanner1991 (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Merge into / redirect to Open-source model[edit]

I found the article Open-source model, and I can't see a difference in scope. Additionally, that article is very detailed. Is there a reason to keep this article separate? wizzwizz4 (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Open-source model to Open source[edit]

The scope of this article is identical to Open-source model. Open-source model was moved from "Open source" in 2016 with little discussion. I don't see the need in having them split up. Both this page and Open-source model list up uses of this term for other industries. BD2412, what do you think? – Thjarkur (talk) 10:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the article's scope is clearer at Open-source model; having the article there might prevent it from going the way of this page. Regardless of where the merged article ends up, we should definitely keep the page history of the article currently at Open-source model; this article is the newer, inferior one, with very little (if anything) to contribute to such a merger. wizzwizz4 (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)