HOME
The Info List - Free And Open-source Software


--- Advertisement ---



Free and open-source software
Free and open-source software
(FOSS) is software that can be classified as both free software and open-source software.[a] That is, anyone is freely licensed to use, copy, study, and change the software in any way, and the source code is openly shared so that people are encouraged to voluntarily improve the design of the software.[3] This is in contrast to proprietary software, where the software is under restrictive copyright and the source code is usually hidden from the users. The benefits of using FOSS can include decreased software costs, increased security and stability (especially in regard to malware), protecting privacy, education, and giving users more control over their own hardware. Free, open-source operating systems such as Linux and descendants of BSD
BSD
are widely utilized today, powering millions of servers, desktops, smartphones (e.g. Android), and other devices.[4][5] Free software
Free software
licenses and open-source licenses are used by many software packages. The Free software
Free software
movement and the open-source software movement are online social movements behind widespread production and adoption of FOSS.

Contents

1 Overview

1.1 Free software 1.2 Open source

2 History 3 Usage

3.1 Benefits over proprietary software

3.1.1 Privacy
Privacy
and security 3.1.2 Personal control, customizability and freedom 3.1.3 Low costs or no costs 3.1.4 Quality, collaboration and efficiency

3.2 Drawbacks to proprietary software

3.2.1 Security and user-support 3.2.2 Hardware and software compatibility 3.2.3 Bugs and missing features 3.2.4 Less guarantees of development 3.2.5 Missing applications 3.2.6 Technical skills and user-friendliness

3.3 Adoption by governments 3.4 Adoption by supranational unions and international organizations

4 Production 5 Issues and incidents

5.1 GPLv3 controversy 5.2 Skewed prioritization, ineffectiveness and egoism of developers 5.3 Commercial ownership of open-source software 5.4 Legal cases

5.4.1 Oracle v. Google

6 As part/driver of a new socioeconomic model

6.1 Benkler's new economy

7 See also 8 Notes 9 References

9.1 Sources

10 Further reading

Overview[edit] Further information: Alternative terms for free software Free and open source software is an umbrella term for software that is free and open source software. Free and open source software allows the user to inspect the source code and provides a high level of control of the software's functions compared to proprietary software. According to the Free Software
Software
Foundation, "Nearly all open source software is free software. The two terms describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for views based on fundamentally different values."[6] Thus, the Open Source Initiative
Open Source Initiative
considers many free software licenses to also be open-source. These include the latest versions of the FSF's three main licenses: the GPL, the Lesser General Public License (LGPL), and the GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL).[7] Thus, terminology of free and open source software is intended to be neutral on these philosophical disagreements. There are a number of related terms and abbreviations for free and open source software (FOSS or F/OSS) or free/libre and open source software (FLOSS). Free software[edit] Richard Stallman's Free Software
Software
Definition, adopted by the Free Software
Software
Foundation (FSF), defines free software as a matter of liberty, not price.[8] The earliest known publication of the definition of his free software idea was in the February 1986 edition[9] of the FSF's now-discontinued GNU's Bulletin publication. The canonical source for the document is in the philosophy section of the GNU Project
GNU Project
website. As of August 2017, it is published there in 40 languages.[10] Open source[edit] The Open Source Definition is used by the Open Source Initiative
Open Source Initiative
to determine whether a software license qualifies for the organization's insignia for open-source software. The definition was based on the Debian
Debian
Free Software
Software
Guidelines, written and adapted primarily by Bruce Perens.[11][12] Perens did not base his writing on the four freedoms of free software from the Free Software
Software
Foundation, which were only later available on the web.[13] Perens subsequently stated that he felt Eric Raymond's promotion of open source unfairly overshadowed the Free Software
Software
Foundation's efforts and reaffirmed his support for free software.[14] In the following 2000s he spoke about Open source
Open source
again.[15][16] History[edit] Main article: History of free and open-source software

This section appears to contradict the article History of free and open-source software. Please see discussion on the linked talk page. (June 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

In the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s to 1980s, it was common for computer users to have the source code for all programs they used, and the permission and ability to modify it for their own use. Software, including source code, was commonly shared by individuals who used computers, often as public domain software.[17] Most companies had a business model based on hardware sales, and provided or bundled software with hardware, free of charge.[18] Organizations of users and suppliers were formed to facilitate the exchange of software; see, for example, SHARE and DECUS. By the late 1960s, the prevailing business model around software was changing. A growing and evolving software industry was competing with the hardware manufacturer's bundled software products; rather than funding software development from hardware revenue, these new companies were selling software directly. Leased machines required software support while providing no revenue for software, and some customers able to better meet their own needs did not want the costs of software bundled with hardware product costs. In United States
United States
vs. IBM, filed 17 January 1969, the government charged that bundled software was anticompetitive.[19] While some software might always be free, there would be a growing amount of software that was for sale only. In the 1970s and early 1980s, some parts of the software industry began using technical measures (such as distributing only binary copies of computer programs) to prevent computer users from being able to use reverse engineering techniques to study and customize software they had paid for. In 1980, the copyright law was extended to computer programs in the United States[20]—previously, computer programs could be considered ideas, procedures, methods, systems, and processes, which are not copyrightable.[21][22] Early on, closed-source software was uncommon until the mid-1970s to the 1980s, when IBM
IBM
implemented in 1983 a "object code only" policy not handing out anymore the source code.[23][24][25] In 1983, Richard Stallman, longtime member of the hacker community at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, announced the GNU project, saying that he had become frustrated with the effects of the change in culture of the computer industry and its users.[26] Software development for the GNU operating system
GNU operating system
began in January 1984, and the Free Software
Software
Foundation (FSF) was founded in October 1985. An article outlining the project and its goals was published in March 1985 titled the GNU Manifesto. The manifesto included significant explanation of the GNU philosophy, Free Software
Software
Definition and "copyleft" ideas. The Linux
Linux
kernel, started by Linus Torvalds, was released as freely modifiable source code in 1991. Initially, Linux
Linux
was not released under a free or open-source software license. However, with version 0.12 in February 1992, he relicensed the project under the GNU General Public License.[27] Much like Unix, Torvalds' kernel attracted the attention of volunteer programmers.[citation needed] Free BSD
BSD
and Net BSD
BSD
(both derived from 386BSD) were released as free software when the USL v. BSDi lawsuit was settled out of court in 1993. Open BSD
BSD
forked from Net BSD
BSD
in 1995. Also in 1995, The Apache HTTP Server, commonly referred to as Apache, was released under the Apache License
Apache License
1.0. In 1997, Eric Raymond published The Cathedral and the Bazaar, a reflective analysis of the hacker community and free software principles. The paper received significant attention in early 1998, and was one factor in motivating Netscape Communications Corporation to release their popular Netscape Communicator
Netscape Communicator
Internet suite as free software. This code is today better known as Mozilla Firefox
Firefox
and Thunderbird. Netscape's act prompted Raymond and others to look into how to bring the FSF's free software ideas and perceived benefits to the commercial software industry. They concluded that FSF's social activism was not appealing to companies like Netscape, and looked for a way to rebrand the free software movement to emphasize the business potential of sharing and collaborating on software source code. The new name they chose was "open source", and quickly Bruce Perens, publisher Tim O'Reilly, Linus Torvalds, and others signed on to the rebranding. The Open Source Initiative
Open Source Initiative
was founded in February 1998 to encourage use of the new term and evangelize open-source principles.[28] While the Open Source Initiative
Open Source Initiative
sought to encourage the use of the new term and evangelize the principles it adhered to, commercial software vendors found themselves increasingly threatened by the concept of freely distributed software and universal access to an application's source code. A Microsoft
Microsoft
executive publicly stated in 2001 that "open source is an intellectual property destroyer. I can't imagine something that could be worse than this for the software business and the intellectual-property business."[29] This view perfectly summarizes the initial response to FOSS by some software corporations.[citation needed] However, while FOSS has historically played a role outside of the mainstream of private software development, companies as large as Microsoft
Microsoft
have begun to develop official open-source presences on the Internet. IBM, Oracle, Google and State Farm are just a few of the companies with a serious public stake in today's competitive open-source market. There has been a significant shift in the corporate philosophy concerning the development of free and open-source software (FOSS).[30] Usage[edit] See also: Linux
Linux
adoption, Free software
Free software
§ Adoption, and Open-source software
Open-source software
§ Adoption Benefits over proprietary software[edit] Privacy
Privacy
and security[edit] See also: Open-source software
Open-source software
security, Surveillance capitalism, Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present), and Software
Software
update system Manufacturers of proprietary, closed-source software are sometimes pressured to building in backdoors or other covert, undesired features into their software.[31][32][33][34] Instead of having to trust software vendors users of FOSS can inspect and verify the source code themselves and can put trust on a community of volunteers and users.[35] As proprietary code is typically hidden from public view, only the vendors themselves and hackers may be aware of any vulnerabilities in them[35] while FOSS involves as many people as possible for exposing bugs quickly.[36][37] Personal control, customizability and freedom[edit] See also: Vendor lock-in Users of FOSS benefit from the freedoms to making unrestricted use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute such software. If they would like to change the functionality of software they can bring about changes to the code and, if they wish, distribute such modified versions of the software or often − depending on the software's decision making model and its other users − even push or request such changes to be made via updates to the original software.[38][39][40][41][35] Low costs or no costs[edit] FOSS is often free of charge although donations are often encouraged. This also allows users to better test and compare software.[35] Quality, collaboration and efficiency[edit] See also: § Bugs and missing features FOSS allows for better collaboration among various parties and individuals with the goal of developing the most efficient software for its users or use-cases while proprietary software is typically meant to generate profits. Furthermore, in many cases more organizations and individuals contribute to such projects than to proprietary software.[35] It has been shown that technical superiority is typically the primary reason why companies choose open source software.[35] Companies might build in artificial barriers, inefficiencies or undesired functionality to increase monetary return. Drawbacks to proprietary software[edit] Security and user-support[edit] See also: Common good, Public participation, and Proactive cyber defence § Measures According to Linus's Law the more people who can see and test a set of code, the more likely any flaws will be caught and fixed quickly. However, this does not guarantee a high level of participation. Having a grouping of full-time professionals behind a commercial product can in some cases be superior to FOSS.[35][36][42] There also can be undesired functionality be built intentionally into FOSS and not get detected or fixed − e.g. due to no or few users checking the source code, changes to the software getting denied or the source code being hardly readable. Furthermore, publicized source code might make it easier for hackers to find vulnerabilities in it and write exploits. This however assumes that such malicious hackers are more effective than white hat hackers which responsibly disclose or help fix the vulnerabilities, that no code leaks or exfiltrations occur and that reverse engineering of proprietary code is a hindrance of significance for malicious hackers.[36] In general it can be found that FOSS is more secure and has good user-support with some exceptions of specific − especially niche or obsolete − software solutions. Hardware and software compatibility[edit] Further information: Software
Software
incompatibility and System requirements Often FOSS is not compatible with proprietary hardware or specific software. This is often due to manufacturers obstructing FOSS such as by not disclosing the interfaces or other specifications needed for members of the FOSS movement to write drivers for their hardware − for instance as they wish customers to run only their own proprietary software or as they might benefit from partnerships.[43][44][45][46][47][48][49][additional citation(s) needed] Bugs and missing features[edit] See also: § Quality, collaboration and efficiency While FOSS can be superior to proprietary equivalents in terms of software features and stability, in many cases FOSS has more unfixed bugs and missing features when compared to similar commercial software.[50][additional citation(s) needed] This varies per case and usually depends on the level of interest and participation in a FOSS project. Furthermore, unlike with typical commercial software missing features and bugfixes can be implemented by any party that has the relevant motivation, time and skill to do so.[42][additional citation(s) needed] Less guarantees of development[edit] There is often less certainty in FOSS projects gaining the required resources / participation for continued development than commercial software backed by companies.[51][additional citation(s) needed] However companies also often abolish projects for being unprofitable and often large companies rely on and hence co-develop open source software.[37] Missing applications[edit] As the FOSS operating system distributions of GNU/ Linux
Linux
has a lower market share of end users there are also fewer applications available.[52][53] Technical skills and user-friendliness[edit] GNU/ Linux
Linux
may require more effort or technical knowledge to set up and maintain.[52] As many GNU/ Linux
Linux
users make extensive use of the command-line many applications lack user-friendliness such as a GUI. Adoption by governments[edit] Main article: Adoption of free and open-source software by public institutions See also: Sovereignty, National security, Cyber emergency response team, and Global public good This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.

Country Description

 Brazil In 2006, the Brazilian government has simultaneously encouraged the distribution of cheap computers running Linux
Linux
throughout its poorer communities by subsidizing their purchase with tax breaks.[54]

 Ecuador In April 2008,[55] Ecuador
Ecuador
passed a similar law, Decree 1014, designed to migrate the public sector to Libre Software.[56]

 France In March 2009, the French Gendarmerie Nationale announced it will totally switch to Ubuntu by 2015. The Gendarmerie began its transition to open source software in 2005 when it replaced Microsoft
Microsoft
Office with OpenOffice.org across the entire organization.[57] In September 2012, the French Prime Minister laid down a set of action-oriented recommendations about using open-source in the French public administration.[58] These recommendations are published in a document based on the works of an inter-ministerial group of experts.[59] This document stops some orientations like establishing an actual convergence on open-source stubs, activating a network of expertise about converging stubs, improving the support of open-source software, contributing to selected stubs, following the big communities, spreading alternatives to the main commercial solutions, tracing the use of open-source and its effects, developing the culture of use of the open-source licenses in the developments of public information systems. One of the aim of this experts groups is also to establish lists of recommended open-source software to use in the French public administration.[60]

 Germany In the German City of Munich, conversion of 15,000 PCs and laptops from Microsoft
Microsoft
Windows-based operating systems to a Debian-based Linux environment called LiMux
LiMux
spanned the ten years of 2003 to 2013. After successful completion of the project, more than 80% of all computers were running Linux.[61] On November 13, 2017 The Register
The Register
reported that Munich is planning to revert to Windows 10 by 2020.[62]

 India The Government of Kerala, India, announced its official support for free/open-source software in its State IT Policy of 2001,[63][discuss] which was formulated after the first-ever free software conference in India, Freedom First!, held in July 2001 in Trivandrum, the capital of Kerala. In 2009, Government of Kerala
Kerala
started the International Centre for Free and Open Source Software
Software
(ICFOSS).[64] In March 2015 the Indian government announced a policy on adoption of open source software.[65][66]

 Italy The Italian military is transitioning to LibreOffice and the Open Document Format (ODF). The Ministry of Defence will over the next year-and-a-half install this suite of office productivity tools on some 150,000 PC workstations - making it Europe’s second largest LibreOffice implementation. The switch was announced on September 15, 2015, by the LibreItalia Association.[67] By June 23, 2016, 6 thousand stations have been migrated.[68] E-learning military platform.[69]

 Jordan In January 2010, the Government of Jordan
Jordan
announced a partnership with Ingres Corporation (now named Actian), an open source database management company based in the United States, to promote open-source software use, starting with university systems in Jordan.[70]

 Malaysia Malaysia
Malaysia
launched the "Malaysian Public Sector Open Source Software Program", saving millions on proprietary software licenses until 2008.[71][72]

 Peru In 2005 the Government of Peru
Peru
voted to adopt open source across all its bodies.[73] The 2002 response to Microsoft's critique is available online. In the preamble to the bill, the Peruvian government stressed that the choice was made to ensure that key pillars of democracy were safeguarded: "The basic principles which inspire the Bill are linked to the basic guarantees of a state of law."[74]

 Uganda In September 2014, the Uganda
Uganda
National Information
Information
Technology Authority (NITA-U) announced a call for feedback on an Open Source Strategy & Policy[75] at a workshop in conjunction with the ICT Association of Uganda
Uganda
(ICTAU).

 United States In February 2009, the United States
United States
White House
White House
moved its website to Linux
Linux
servers using Drupal
Drupal
for content management.[76] In August 2016, the United States
United States
government announced a new federal source code policy which mandates that at least 20% of custom source code developed by or for any agency of the federal government be released as open-source software (OSS).[77] In addition, the policy requires that all source code be shared between agencies. The public release is under a three-year pilot program and agencies are obliged to collect data on this pilot to gauge its performance. The overall policy aims to reduce duplication, avoid vendor 'lock-in', and stimulate collaborative development. A new website code.gov provides "an online collection of tools, best practices, and schemas to help agencies implement this policy", the policy announcement stated. It also provides the "primary discoverability portal for custom-developed software intended both for Government-wide reuse and for release as OSS".[77] As yet unspecified OSS licenses will be added to the code.[78]

 Venezuela In 2004, a law in Venezuela
Venezuela
(Decree 3390) went into effect, mandating a two-year transition to open source in all public agencies. As of June 2009[update], the transition was still under way.[79][80][needs update]

Adoption by supranational unions and international organizations[edit]

"We migrated key functions from Windows to Linux
Linux
because we needed an operating system that was stable and reliable -- one that would give us in-house control. So if we needed to patch, adjust, or adapt, we could."

Official statement of the United Space Alliance, which manages the computer systems for the International Space Station
International Space Station
(ISS), regarding why they chose to switch from Windows to Linux
Linux
on the ISS.[81][82]

In 2017, the European Commission
European Commission
stated that "EU institutions should become open source software users themselves, even more than they already are" and listed open source software as one of the nine key drivers of innovation, together with big data, mobility, cloud computing and the internet of things.[83] Production[edit] See also: Open-source
Open-source
development

This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (July 2017)

Issues and incidents[edit] GPLv3 controversy[edit]

This section provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject. Please help improve the article with a good introductory style. (February 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

While copyright is the primary legal mechanism that FOSS authors use to ensure license compliance for their software, other mechanisms such as legislation, patents, and trademarks have implications as well. In response to legal issues with patents and the Digital Millennium Copyright
Copyright
Act (DMCA), the Free Software
Software
Foundation released version 3 of its GNU Public License in 2007 that explicitly addressed the DMCA and patent rights. After the development of the GNU GPLv3
GNU GPLv3
in 2007, the FSF (as copyright holder of many pieces of the GNU system) updated many[citation needed] of the GNU programs' licenses from GPLv2 to GPLv3. On the other hand, the adoption of the new GPL version was heavily discussed in the FOSS ecosystem,[84] several projects decided against upgrading. For instance the linux kernel,[85][86] the BusyBox[87][88] project, AdvFS,[89] Blender,[90] and as also the VLC media player
VLC media player
decided against adopting the GPLv3.[91] Apple, a user of GCC and a heavy user of both DRM and patents, switched the compiler in its Xcode
Xcode
IDE from GCC to Clang, which is another FOSS compiler[92] but is under a permissive license.[93] LWN speculated that Apple was motivated partly by a desire to avoid GPLv3.[92] The Samba project also switched to GPLv3, so Apple replaced Samba in their software suite by a closed-source, proprietary software alternative.[94] Skewed prioritization, ineffectiveness and egoism of developers[edit] See also: Issue tracking system Leemhuis criticizes the prioritization of skilled developers who − instead of fixing issues in popular applications and desktop environments − create new, mostly redundant software to gain fame and fortune.[95] He also criticizes notebook manufacturers for optimizing their own products only privately or creating workarounds instead of helping fix the actual causes of the many issues with GNU/ Linux
Linux
on notebooks such as the unnecessary power consumption.[95] Commercial ownership of open-source software[edit] Mergers have affected major open-source software. Sun Microsystems (Sun) acquired MySQL
MySQL
AB, owner of the popular open-source MySQL database, in 2008.[96] Oracle in turn purchased Sun in January, 2010, acquiring their copyrights, patents, and trademarks. Thus, Oracle became the owner of both the most popular proprietary database and the most popular open-source database. Oracle's attempts to commercialize the open-source MySQL
MySQL
database have raised concerns in the FOSS community.[97] Partly in response to uncertainty about the future of MySQL, the FOSS community forked the project into new database systems outside of Oracle's control. These include MariaDB, Percona, and Drizzle.[98] All of these have distinct names; they are distinct projects and can not use the trademarked name MySQL.[99] Legal cases[edit] Oracle v. Google[edit] In August, 2010, Oracle sued Google, claiming that its use of Java in Android infringed on Oracle's copyrights and patents. The Oracle v. Google
Google
case ended in May 2012, with the finding that Google
Google
did not infringe on Oracle's patents, and the trial judge ruled that the structure of the Java APIs used by Google
Google
was not copyrightable. The jury found that Google
Google
infringed a small number of copied files, but the parties stipulated that Google
Google
would pay no damages.[100] Oracle appealed to the Federal Circuit, and Google
Google
filed a cross-appeal on the literal copying claim.[101] Oracle won the appeal, but Google
Google
won a subsequent retrial in 2016.[citation needed] As part/driver of a new socioeconomic model[edit] Main article: Open-source
Open-source
model See also: The Zeitgeist Movement, Open content, Open science, Collaboration, Open Source Ecology, Open manufacturing, Sharing economy, and Post-scarcity economy By defying ownership regulations in the construction and use of information − a key area of contemporary growth − the Free/Open Source Software
Software
(FOSS) movement counters neoliberalism and privatization in general.[102] 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.[102] Benkler's new economy[edit] According to Yochai Benkler, Jack N. and Lillian R. Berkman Professor for Entrepreneurial Legal Studies at Harvard Law School, free software is the most visible part of a new economy of commons-based peer production of information, knowledge, and culture. As examples, he cites a variety of FOSS projects, including both free software and open-source.[103] This new economy is already under development. To commercialize FOSS, many companies move towards advertisement-supported software. In such a model, the only way to increase revenue is to make the advertisement more valuable. Facebook
Facebook
was criticized in 2011 for using novel methods of tracking users to accomplish this.[104] This new economy has alternatives. Apple's App Stores have proven very popular with both users and developers. The Free Software
Software
Foundation considers Apple's App Stores to be incompatible with its GPL and complained that Apple was infringing on the GPL with its iTunes terms of use. Rather than change those terms to comply with the GPL, Apple removed the GPL-licensed products from its App Stores.[105] See also[edit]

FLOSS Manuals FLOSS Weekly Free software
Free software
community Free software
Free software
license Graphics hardware and FOSS List of free and open source software packages List of formerly proprietary software Open-source
Open-source
license Outline of free software

Notes[edit]

^ FOSS is an inclusive term that covers both free software and open-source software, which despite describing similar development models, have differing cultures and philosophies.[1] Free refers to the users' freedom to copy and re-use the software. The Free Software Foundation, an organization that advocates the free software model, suggests that, to understand the concept, one should "think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer". (See "The Free Software Definition". GNU.org. Retrieved 4 February 2010. ) Free software focuses on the fundamental freedoms it gives to users, whereas open source software focuses on the perceived strengths of its peer-to-peer development model.[2] FOSS is a term that can be used without particular bias towards either political approach.

References[edit]

^ Feller 2005, pp. 89, 362. ^ Feller 2005, pp. 101–106, 110–111. ^ Free Software
Software
Foundation. "What is free software?". Retrieved 14 December 2011.  ^ Hatlestad 2005. ^ Claburn 2007. ^ Stallman n.d. ^ "Licenses by Name". Open Source License. Open Source Initiative. Retrieved 23 October 2011.  ^ "GNU.org". GNU.org. 20 September 2011. Retrieved 23 October 2011.  ^ "GNU's Bulletin, Volume 1 Number 1, page 8". GNU.org.  ^ "The Free Software
Software
Definition – Translations of this page". GNU.org.  ^ "The Open Source Definition by Bruce Perens". , Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution, January 1999, ISBN 1-56592-582-3 ^ "The Open Source Definition". , The Open Source Definition according to the Open Source Initiative ^ "Slashdot.org". News.slashdot.org. 16 February 2009. Retrieved 23 October 2011.  ^ "It's Time to Talk
Talk
About Free Software
Software
Again". Archived from the original on 2014-07-16.  ^ " Bruce Perens
Bruce Perens
- State of Open Source Message: A New Decade For Open Source". Perens.com. 1998-02-09. Archived from the original on 4 November 2013. Retrieved 2009-07-15.  ^ Barr, Joe (January 13, 2003). "Meet the Perens". LinuxWorld Magazine.  ^ Shea, Tom (1983-06-23). " Free software
Free software
- Free software
Free software
is a junkyard of software spare parts". InfoWorld. Retrieved 2016-02-10.  ^ Gates, Bill (February 3, 1976), An Open Letter to Hobbyists  ^ Fisher, McKie & Mancke 1983. ^ Computer Software
Software
1980 Copyright
Copyright
Act, Pub. L. No. 96-517, 94 Stat. 3015, 3028. ^ " Copyright
Copyright
Basics".  ^ Weber 2009. ^ Object code only: is IBM
IBM
playing fair? IBM's OCO policy protects its own assets but may threaten customers investment on Computerworld
Computerworld
- 8 Febr. 1988 ^ Firm sidestep IBM
IBM
policy by banning software changes on Computerworld
Computerworld
(18 March 1985) ^ Gallant, John (1985-03-18). " IBM
IBM
policy draws fire – Users say source code rules hamper change". Computerworld. Retrieved 2015-12-27. While IBM's policy of withholding source code for selected software products has already marked its second anniversary, users are only now beginning to cope with the impact of that decision. But whether or not the advent of object-code-only products has affected their day-to-day DP operations, some users remain angry about IBM's decision. Announced in February 1983, IBM's object-code-only policy has been applied to a growing list of Big Blue system software products  ^ William 2002. ^ "Release notes for Linux
Linux
kernel 0.12". Kernel.org.  ^ "History of the OSI". Opensource.org.  ^ Charny 2001. ^ Miller, Voas & Costello 2010, pp. 14–16. ^ " Microsoft
Microsoft
Back Doors". www.gnu.org. Retrieved 4 July 2017.  ^ " Microsoft
Microsoft
Accidentally Leaks Key to Windows Backdoor - Schneier on Security". www.schneier.com. Retrieved 4 July 2017.  ^ Thomson, Iain. "Snowden leak: Microsoft
Microsoft
added Outlook.com backdoor for Feds". Retrieved 4 July 2017.  ^ Strandburg, Katherine J.; Raicu, Daniela Stan (2005). Privacy
Privacy
and Technologies of Identity: A Cross-Disciplinary Conversation. Springer Science
Science
& Business Media. ISBN 9780387260501. Retrieved 4 July 2017.  ^ a b c d e f g "10 Reasons Open Source Is Good for Business". PCWorld. Retrieved 4 July 2017.  ^ a b c "Is Open Source Software
Software
More Secure?" (PDF). Retrieved 4 July 2017.  ^ a b " Open source software
Open source software
is more secure than you think". SC Media US. 8 October 2013. Retrieved 12 July 2017.  ^ Kirk, St Amant (2007). Handbook of Research
Research
on Open Source Software: Technological, Economic, and Social Perspectives: Technological, Economic, and Social Perspectives. Idea Group Inc (IGI). ISBN 9781591408925. Retrieved 4 July 2017.  ^ Jacquart, Rene (2008). Building the Information
Information
Society: IFIP 18th World Computer Congress Topical Sessions 22–27 August 2004 Toulouse, France. Springer. ISBN 9781402081576. Retrieved 4 July 2017.  ^ Lopez-Tarruella, Aurelio (2012). Google
Google
and the Law: Empirical Approaches to Legal Aspects of Knowledge- Economy
Economy
Business Models. Springer Science
Science
& Business Media. ISBN 9789067048453. Retrieved 4 July 2017.  ^ "What is free software?". www.gnu.org. Retrieved 4 July 2017.  ^ a b "Too Big to Fail Open-Source Software
Software
Needs Hacker Help". Observer. 4 November 2016. Retrieved 12 July 2017.  ^ Fogel, Karl (2005). Producing Open Source Software: How to Run a Successful Free Software
Software
Project. "O'Reilly Media, Inc.". ISBN 9780596552992. Retrieved 4 July 2017.  ^ Sery, Paul G. (2007). Ubuntu Linux
Linux
For Dummies. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9780470125052. Retrieved 4 July 2017.  ^ " Linux
Linux
Today - KERNEL-DEV: UDI and Free Software
Software
by Richard Stallman". www.linuxtoday.com. Retrieved 4 July 2017.  ^ Vaughan-Nichols, Steven J. " Microsoft
Microsoft
tries to block Linux
Linux
off Windows 8 PCs ZDNet". ZDNet. Retrieved 12 July 2017.  ^ Kingsley-Hughes, Adrian. "Lenovo reportedly blocking Linux
Linux
on Windows 10 Signature Edition PCs (updated) ZDNet". ZDNet. Retrieved 12 July 2017.  ^ " Linux
Linux
Today - How Microsoft
Microsoft
Changes the Prices at OEMs to Block GNU/ Linux
Linux
Sales". www.linuxtoday.com. Retrieved 12 July 2017.  ^ " Microsoft
Microsoft
'killed Dell Linux' – States". Retrieved 12 July 2017.  ^ Hill, Benjamin Mako. "When Free Software
Software
Isn't (Practically) Superior". Retrieved 11 July 2017.  ^ Arthur, Tatnall (2007). Encyclopedia of Portal Technologies and Applications. Idea Group Inc (IGI). ISBN 9781591409908. Retrieved 11 July 2017.  ^ a b Baldauf, Kenneth; Stair, Ralph (2008). Succeeding with Technology. Cengage Learning. ISBN 1423925297. Retrieved 12 July 2017.  ^ Mastering Information
Information
Technology for CXC CSEC CAPE. Dennis Adonis. Retrieved 12 July 2017.  ^ Casson & Ryan 2006. ^ "[News] Ecuador
Ecuador
Ahead of the World with Democracy
Democracy
of Knowledge".  ^ (in Spanish) Estebanmendieta.com, Decree 1014 ^ Paul 2009. ^ [1] PM Bulletin (Circular letter) #5608-SG of September 19th, 2012 ^ [2] Use of the open-source software in the administration ^ [3] Interministerial base of open-source applications ^ "Landeshauptstadt München - Aktuelle Zahlen" (in German). Muenchen.de. Archived from the original on 2013-11-21. Retrieved 2014-07-28. [permanent dead link] ^ "Munich council: To hell with Linux, we're going full Windows in 2020". Retrieved 2017-12-04.  ^ ""Role of Open or Free Software", Section 15, page 20, of the State IT Policy (2001) of the Government of Kerala, copy available at the UN Public Administration Network (UNPAN) site" (PDF).  ^ http://www.keralait.org/blog/2011/02/25/chief-minister-inaugurates-icfoss-in-kerala/[permanent dead link] ^ Alawadhi 2015. ^ "Policy on Adoption of Open Source Software
Software
for Government of India" (PDF). [permanent dead link] ^ "Italian military to switch to LibreOffice and ODF".  ^ "Un anno di LibreDifesa". LibreItalia (in Italian). Retrieved 2017-10-09.  ^ "Difel: LibreDifesa". el-stelmilit.difesa.it. Retrieved 2017-10-09.  ^ " Jordan
Jordan
Information
Information
Ministry signs deal on open source - Government - News & Features". ITP.net. Retrieved 2012-04-23.  ^ "OSCC.org". OSCC.org. Retrieved 23 October 2011.  ^ "OSCC.org". Retrieved 23 October 2011.  ^ Clarke 2005. ^ National Advisory Council on Innovation Open Software
Software
Working Group (July 2004). "Free/Libre & Open Source Software
Software
and Open Standards in South Africa" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on December 22, 2014. Retrieved 31 May 2008.  ^ "Open Source Strategy & Policy" Archived 2014-09-27 at the Wayback Machine. ^ Vaughan-Nichols 2009. ^ a b Scott, Tony; Rung, Anne E (8 August 2016). Federal Source Code Policy: Achieving Efficiency, Transparency, and Innovation through Reusable and Open Source Software
Software
— Memorandum for the Heads of Departments and Agencies — M-16-21 (PDF). Washington DC, USA: Office of Budget and Management, Executive Office of the President. Archived from the original (PDF) on 20 September 2016. Retrieved 2016-09-14.  Also available as HTML at: sourcecode.cio.gov ^ New, William (22 August 2016). "New US Government Source Code Policy Could Provide Model For Europe". Intellectual Property Watch. Geneva, Switzerland. Retrieved 2016-09-14.  ^ (in Spanish) Venezuela
Venezuela
Open Source Archived February 16, 2008, at the Wayback Machine. ^ Chavez, Hugo F. (December 2004). "Publicado en la Gaceta oficial No 38.095 de fecha 28/ 12/ 2004". Archived from the original on 9 August 2011. Retrieved 23 October 2011.  ^ Gunter 2013. ^ Bridgewater 2013. ^ Directorate General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology (2017). The economic and social impact of software & services on competitiveness and innovation. ISBN 978-92-79-66177-8.  ^ Mark (2008-05-08). "The Curse of Open Source License Proliferation". socializedsoftware.com. Retrieved 2015-11-30. Currently the decision to move from GPL v2 to GPL v3 is being hotly debated by many open source projects. According to Palamida, a provider of IP compliance software, there have been roughly 2489 open source projects that have moved from GPL v2 to later versions.  ^ Torvalds, Linus. "COPYING". kernel.org. Retrieved 13 August 2013. Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.  ^ Kerner, Sean Michael (2008-01-08). "Torvalds Still Keen On GPLv2". internetnews.com. Retrieved 2015-02-12. "In some ways, Linux
Linux
was the project that really made the split clear between what the FSF is pushing which is very different from what open source and Linux
Linux
has always been about, which is more of a technical superiority instead of a -- this religious belief in freedom," Torvalds told Zemlin. So, the GPL Version 3 reflects the FSF's goals and the GPL Version 2 pretty closely matches what I think a license should do and so right now, Version 2 is where the kernel is."  ^ corbet (2006-10-01). "Busy busy busybox". lwn.net. Retrieved 2015-11-21. Since BusyBox
BusyBox
can be found in so many embedded systems, it finds itself at the core of the GPLv3 anti-DRM debate. [...]The real outcomes, however, are this: BusyBox
BusyBox
will be GPLv2 only starting with the next release. It is generally accepted that stripping out the "or any later version" is legally defensible, and that the merging of other GPLv2-only code will force that issue in any case  ^ Landley, Rob (2006-09-09). "Re: Move GPLv2 vs v3 fun..." lwn.net. Retrieved 2015-11-21. Don't invent a straw man argument please. I consider licensing BusyBox
BusyBox
under GPLv3 to be useless, unnecessary, overcomplicated, and confusing, and in addition to that it has actual downsides. 1) Useless: We're never dropping GPLv2.  ^ Press release concerning the release of the AdvFS source code ^ Prokoudine, Alexandre (26 January 2012). "What's up with DWG adoption in free software?". libregraphicsworld.org. Archived from the original on 2016-11-09. Retrieved 2015-12-05. [Blender's Toni Roosendaal:] "Blender is also still "GPLv2 or later". For the time being we stick to that, moving to GPL 3 has no evident benefits I know of."  ^ Denis-Courmont, Rémi. " VLC media player
VLC media player
to remain under GNU GPL version 2". videolan.org. Retrieved 2015-11-21. In 2001, VLC was released under the OSI-approved GNU General Public version 2, with the commonly-offered option to use "any later version" thereof (though there was not any such later version at the time). Following the release by the Free Software
Software
Foundation (FSF) of the new version 3 of its GNU General Public License
GNU General Public License
(GPL) on the 29th of June 2007, contributors to the VLC media player, and other software projects hosted at videolan.org, debated the possibility of updating the licensing terms for future version of the VLC media player
VLC media player
and other hosted projects, to version 3 of the GPL. [...] There is strong concern that these new additional requirements might not match the industrial and economic reality of our time, especially in the market of consumer electronics. It is our belief that changing our licensing terms to GPL version 3
GPL version 3
would currently not be in the best interest of our community as a whole. Consequently, we plan to keep distributing future versions of VLC media player
VLC media player
under the terms of the GPL version 2.  ^ a b Brockmeier 2010. ^ "LLVM Developer Policy". LLVM. Retrieved November 19, 2012.  ^ Holwerda 2011. ^ a b Leemhuis, Thorsten. "Kommentar: Linux
Linux
scheitert an Egozentrik" (in German). heise online. Retrieved 12 July 2017.  ^ "Sun to Acquire MySQL". MySQL
MySQL
AB. Archived from the original on 2011-07-18. Retrieved 2008-01-16.  ^ Thomson 2011. ^ Samson 2011. ^ Nelson 2009. ^ Niccolai 2012. ^ Jones 2012. ^ a b Georgopoulou, Panayiota (2009). "The free/open source software movement Resistance or change?". Civitas - Revista de Ciências Sociais. 9 (1). ISSN 1519-6089. Retrieved 11 July 2017.  ^ Benkler 2003. ^ ElBoghdady & Tsukayama 2011. ^ Vaughan-Nichols 2011.

Sources[edit]

Alawadhi, Neha (March 30, 2015). "Government announces policy on open source software". The Times of India. Retrieved 2015-06-27.  Benkler, Yochai (April 2003). "Freedom in the Commons: Towards a Political Economy
Economy
of Information". Duke Law Journal. 52 (6).  Bridgewater, Adrian (May 13, 2013). "International Space Station adopts Debian
Debian
Linux, drops Windows & Red Hat into airlock". Computer Weekly. Retrieved 2015-06-27.  Brockmeier, Joe (September 15, 2010). "Apple's Selective Contributions to GCC". LWN.net. Retrieved 2015-06-22.  Casson, Tony; Ryan, Patrick S. (May 1, 2006). "Open Standards, Open Source Adoption in the Public Sector, and Their Relationship to Microsoft's Market Dominance". In Bolin, Sherrie. Standards Edge: Unifier or Divider?. Sheridan Books. p. 87. ISBN 0974864854. SSRN 1656616 .  Charny, B. (May 3, 2001). " Microsoft
Microsoft
Raps Open-Source Approach". CNET News.  Claburn, Thomas (January 17, 2007). "Study Finds Open Source Benefits Business". InformationWeek. CMP Media, LLC. Archived from the original on 2007-11-25. Retrieved 2007-11-25.  Clarke, Gavin (September 29, 2005). "Peru's parliament approves pro-open source bill". The Register. Retrieved 2015-06-27.  ElBoghdady, Dina; Tsukayama, Hayley (September 29, 2011). "Facebook tracking prompts calls for FTC investigation". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2015-06-27.  Feller, Joseph (ed.) (2005). Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0262062466. CS1 maint: Extra text: authors list (link) Fisher, Franklin M.; McKie, James W.; Mancke, Richard B. (1983). IBM and the U.S. Data
Data
Processing Industry: An Economic History. Praeger. ISBN 0-03-063059-2.  Gunter, Joel (May 10, 2013). " International Space Station
International Space Station
to boldly go with Linux
Linux
over Windows". The Telegraph. Retrieved 2015-06-27.  Hatlestad, Luc (August 9, 2005). "LinuxWorld Showcases Open-Source Growth, Expansion". InformationWeek. CMP Media, LLC. Archived from the original on 2007-12-02. Retrieved 2007-11-25.  Holwerda, Thom (March 26, 2011). "Apple Ditches SAMBA in Favour of Homegrown Replacement". OS News. Retrieved 2015-06-22.  Jones, Pamela (October 5, 2012). "Oracle and Google
Google
File
File
Appeals". Groklaw. Retrieved 2015-06-22.  Miller, K. W.; Voas, J.; Costello, T. (2010). "Free and open source software". IT Professional. 12 (6): 14–16. doi:10.1109/MITP.2010.147.  Nelson, Russell (December 13, 2009). "Open Source, MySQL, and trademarks". Opensource.org. Open Source Initiative. Retrieved 2015-06-22.  Niccolai, James (June 20, 2012). "Oracle agrees to 'zero' damages in Google
Google
lawsuit, eyes appeal". Computerworld. Retrieved 2015-06-22.  Paul, Ryan (March 11, 2009). "French police: we saved millions of euros by adopting Ubuntu". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2015-06-27.  Perens, Bruce (1999). "The Open Source Definition". Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution. O'Reilly Media. ISBN 1-56592-582-3.  Samson, Ted (March 17, 2011). "Non-Oracle MySQL
MySQL
fork deemed ready for prime time". InfoWorld. Retrieved 2015-06-22.  Stallman, Richard (n.d.). "Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software". GNU.org. Free Software
Software
Foundation. Retrieved 2015-06-27.  Thomson, Iain (September 16, 2011). "Oracle offers commercial extensions to MySQL". The Register. Retrieved 2015-06-22.  Vaughan-Nichols, Steven J. (October 29, 2009). "Obama Invites Open Source into the White House". PCWorld. Retrieved 2015-06-27.  Vaughan-Nichols, Steven (January 8, 2011). "No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store". ZDNet. Retrieved 2015-06-27.  Weber, Steve (2009). The Success of Open Source. Harvard University Press. p. 4. ISBN 9780674044999.  William, Sam (2002). Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman's Crusade for Free Software. O'Reilly Media. ISBN 978-0596002879. 

Further reading[edit]

Barr, Joe (1998). "Why "Free Software" is better than "Open Source"". Free Software
Software
Foundation. Archived from the original on 2007-11-25. Retrieved 2007-11-25.  Salus, Peter H. (March 28, 2005). "A History of Free and Open Source". Groklaw. Retrieved 2015-06-22.  Vetter, G. (2009). "Commercial Free and Open Source Software: Knowledge
Knowledge
Production, Hybrid Appropriability, and Patents". Fordham Law Review. 77 (5): 2087–2141.  Wheeler, David A. (May 8, 2014). "Why Open Source Software
Software
/ Free Software
Software
(OSS/FS, FLOSS, or FOSS)? Look at the Numbers!". DWheeler.com. Retrieved 2015-06-22. 

Wikibooks has a book on the topic of: FLOSS Concept Booklet

Wikibooks has a book on the topic of: FOSS A General Introduction

v t e

Free and open-source software

General

Alternative terms for free software Comparison of open-source and closed-source software Comparison of source code hosting facilities Free software Free software
Free software
project directories Gratis versus libre Long-term support Open-source
Open-source
software Open-source software
Open-source software
development Outline

Software packages

Audio Bioinformatics Codecs Collaboration Configuration management Device drivers

Graphics Wireless

Geophysics Health Mathematics Operating systems Programming languages Routing Statistics Television Video games Web applications

Content management systems E-commerce

Word processors Android apps iOS apps Commercial Trademarked Formerly proprietary

Community

Free software
Free software
movement History Open-source software
Open-source software
movement Organizations Events

Licenses

AFL Apache APSL Artistic Beerware Boost BSD CC0 CDDL EPL Free Software
Software
Foundation

GNU GPL GNU LGPL

ISC MIT MPL Ms-PL/RL Python Python Software
Software
Foundation License Sleepycat Unlicense WTFPL zlib

License types and standards

Comparison of free and open-source software licenses Contributor License Agreement Copyleft Debian
Debian
Free Software
Software
Guidelines Definition of Free Cultural Works Free license The Free Software
Software
Definition The Open Source Definition Open-source
Open-source
license Permissive software licence Public domain Viral license

Challenges

Binary blob Digital rights management Hardware restrictions License proliferation Mozilla software rebranding Proprietary software SCO/ Linux
Linux
controversies Secure boot Software
Software
patents Software
Software
security Trusted Computing

Related topics

The Cathedral and the Bazaar Forking Microsoft
Microsoft
Open Specification Promise Open-source
Open-source
hardware Revolution OS

Book Category Commons Portal

v t e

Free culture and Open source
Open source
movements

Concepts and Practices

Key Concepts

Commons-based peer production Gratis versus libre Open collaboration Participatory culture Sharism Social peer-to-peer processes

Research
Research
and Science

Citizen science Open access Open notebook science Open research Open science

Data, Information and Knowledge

Free content Knowledge
Knowledge
commons Open content Open communication Open data Open knowledge

Communication and Education

Citizen media

Citizen journalism

Democratic media Open education Open university

Open-door academic policy Open admissions

Open-source
Open-source
journalism Participatory media

Economy, Production and Development

Free and open-source software
Free and open-source software
- FOSS

Free/Libre software Open-source
Open-source
software

Gift Economy Open design Open gaming Open innovation Open patent Open-source
Open-source
architecture Open source
Open source
hardware Open standard

Politics
Politics
and Governance

Open government Open-source
Open-source
governance

Organizations

Creative Commons Free Software
Software
Foundation Open Architecture Network Openmod initiative Open Knowledge
Knowledge
International Open Rights Group Open Source Initiative Open Web Foundation P2P Foundation Pirate Party PLOS SPARC

Activists

Tim Berners-Lee Alexandra Elbakyan Lawrence Lessig Peter Murray-Rust Douglas Rushkoff Richard Stallman Peter Suber Peter Sunde Aaron Swartz John Wilbanks

Projects and Movements

DIYbio Free culture movement Free software
Free software
movement Open Source Ecology Open-source software
Open-source software
movement OpenCores OpenWetWare Sci-Hub

Tools

Licenses

Creative Commons GLP

Definition Docs

Free Cultural Works Free Software Open Open Source

Open Data
Data
Indicies Open Educational Resources Open Music Model Open Web movement

Fr

.