Free And Open Source

References

1. ^
2. ^
3. ^
4. ^ . PMID 33775148. Wikidata Q111919147 2026 – via OSTI.
5. ^ . ACM Computing Surveys. 44 (2). Association for Computing Machinery: 7:1–7:35. doi:10.1145/2089125.2089127. ISSN 0360-0300 2024. FLOSS is an umbrella term covering a diversity of kinds of software and approaches to development [...] The distinction between free software and open-source software is sometimes controversial, and there are important differences between these two development communities [Kelty 2008]. However, our focus in this article is research on their development processes, which are acknowledged by participants to be largely similar [...], hence our use of this umbrella term.
6. ^ . Public Rights: Copyright's Public Domains. Cambridge University Press. pp. 483, 485. doi:10.1017/9781316460214.017. ISBN  2024. The two predominant strains of FOSS licences are those that comply with the Open Source Initiative's 'Open Source Definition', and those that comply with the Free Software Foundation's 'Free Software Definition' [...] The list of 'open source' licences kept by the OSI, and of 'free' software licences kept by the FSF, are together called FOSS (free and open-source software) licences. All FOSS licences, because they meet the requirements of either OSI or FSF, should also meet our criteria for neutral voluntary licences and thus software licensed under them is part of the public domain.
7. ^ 2024. The Review does not endorse any one licensing model, focus or emphasis, but rather seeks, in an academically rigorous and objective manner, to increase the knowledge and understanding about the legal mechanisms used by all forms of Free and Open Source Software licences. It uses the term Free and Open Source Software to cover both Free Software and Open Source Software. FOSS is a term that can be used without particular bias towards either political approach.
8. ^ 4). Wiley: 78–102. doi:10.1111/jwip.12114. ISSN 1747-1796. The term "Free and Open Source Software" includes both, Free Software as defined by the Free Software Foundation and Open Source Software as defined by the Open Source Initiative. In the following article, the term Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) will be used.
9. ^
10. ^
11. ^
12. ^.
13. ^.
14. ^.
15. ^ 2011.
16. ^ 4): 78–102. doi:10.1111/jwip.12114. ISSN 1422-2213. S2CID 159111696.
17. ^.
18. ^.
19. ^ 2018.
20. ^., Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution, January 1999, ISBN 
21. ^., The Open Source Definition according to the Open Source Initiative
22. ^ 2011.
23. ^.
24. ^.
25. ^ 2017.
26. ^ – via Google Books.
27. ^
28. ^
29. ^ . history.nih.gov. US: National Institutes of Health. Archived from the original(PDF) on 2009-06-25.
30. ^.
31. ^
32. ^.
33. ^ 2022.
34. ^
35. ^ 2023.
36. ^
37. ^ 2017 – via Google Books.
38. ^ 2017 – via Google Books.
39. ^ 2017 – via Google Books.
40. ^ 2017.
41. ^ 2017.
42. ^ 2017.
43. ^ 2017.
44. ^ 2017.
45. ^ 2017 – via Google Books.
46. ^ . washington.edu. University of Washington. Archived(PDF) from the original on 24 July 2017 2017.
47. ^ 2017.
48. ^ 2017.
49. ^ 2017 – via Google Books.
50. ^ 2017 – via Google Books.
51. ^ 2017.
52. ^ 2017.
53. ^ 2017.
54. ^ 2017.
55. ^ 2017.
56. ^ 2017.
57. ^
58. ^ 2017 – via Google Books.
59. ^ 2017 – via Google Books.
60. ^ 2017 – via Google Books.
61. ^.
62. ^.
63. ^
64. ^
65. ^.
66. ^ . Estebanmendieta.com. Archived from the original(Blog) on 2014-06-28.
67. ^
68. ^ . modernisation.gouv.fr. September 19, 2012. Archived from the original(PDF) on 2017-08-27.
69. ^ . modernisation.gouv.fr. Archived from the original(PDF) on 2018-09-10.
70. ^ . modernisation.gouv.fr. Archived from the original(PDF) on 2017-08-27.
71. ^.
72. ^.
73. ^.
74. ^.
75. ^.
76. ^ "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). Archived from the original(PDF) on 2013-11-03.
77. ^.
78. ^
79. ^ . Archived(PDF) from the original on 2015-08-15.
80. ^.
81. ^ 2018.
82. ^.
83. ^ – via itp.net.
84. ^ 2011.
85. ^ 2011 – via oscc.org.my.
86. ^
87. ^ . Archived(PDF) from the original on 22 December 2014 2008.
88. ^.
89. ^.
90. ^.
91. ^ 2022.
92. ^
93. ^ . Washington DC, US: Office of Budget and Management, Executive Office of the President. Archived(PDF) from the original on 21 January 2017. Also available as HTML at: sourcecode.cio.gov
94. ^.
95. ^ 2022.
96. ^ 2011.
97. ^
98. ^
99. ^.
100. ^.
101. ^.
102. ^.
103. ^.
104. ^.
105. ^.
106. ^ .
107. ^.
108. ^.
109. ^.
110. ^.
111. ^.
112. ^ .
113. ^. 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.
114. ^ 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.
115. ^. "In some ways, 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 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."
116. ^. Since 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 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
117. ^. Don't invent a straw man argument please. I consider licensing 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.
118. ^.
119. ^. [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."
120. ^. 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 Foundation (FSF) of the new version 3 of its 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 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 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 under the terms of the GPL version 2.
121. ^
122. ^ 2012.
123. ^
124. ^.
125. ^.
126. ^ 2017.
127. ^.
128. ^
129. ^
130. ^
131. ^
132. ^
133. ^.
134. ^ . ISSN 1519-6089. Archived from the original on 13 July 2017 2017.
135. ^