fbpx
Wikipedia

Free and open-source software

January 13, 2023

"FLOSS", "FOSS", and "Free and Open-source" redirect here. For hardware, see Open-source hardware. For other uses of "Foss", see Foss (disambiguation). For other uses of "Floss", see Floss (disambiguation).

Free and open-source software (FOSS) is a term used to refer to groups of software consisting of both free software and open-source software[a] where 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 licensing and the source code is usually hidden from the users.

A screenshot of free and open-source software (FOSS): Fedora Linux 36 running the KDE Plasma 5 desktop environment, Firefox, Dolphin file manager, VLC media player, LibreOffice Writer, GIMP, and KCalc

FOSS maintains the software user's civil liberty rights (see the Four Essential Freedoms, below). Other 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 and open-source operating systems such as Linux and descendants of BSD are widely utilized today, powering millions of servers, desktops, smartphones (e.g., Android), and other devices.[4][5] Free-software licenses and open-source licenses are used by many software packages. The free software movement and the open-source software movement are online social movements behind widespread production and adoption of FOSS, with the former preferring to use the terms FLOSS or free/libre.

Overview

Further information: Alternative terms for free software

"Free and open-source software" (FOSS) is an umbrella term for software that is simultaneously considered both free software and open-source software. FOSS (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. The term "free software" does not refer to the monetary cost of the software at all, but rather whether the license maintains the software user's civil liberties ("free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer”).[3] 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 or F/LOSS is preferred by FSF over FOSS, while free or free/libre is their preferred term).[6]

Although there is almost a complete overlap between free-software licenses and open-source-software licenses, there is a strong philosophical disagreement between the advocates of these two positions. The terminology of FOSS or "Free and Open-source software" was created to be a neutral on these philosophical disagreements between the FSF and OSI and have a single unified term that could refer to both concepts.[7]

Free software

Richard Stallman's Free Software Definition, adopted by the Free Software Foundation (FSF), defines free software as a matter of liberty not price,[8][9] and it upholds the Four Essential Freedoms. The earliest-known publication of the definition of his free-software idea was in the February 1986 edition[10] 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 website. As of August 2017, it is published in 40 languages.[11]

Four essential freedoms of Free Software

To meet the definition of "free software", the FSF requires the software's licensing respect the civil liberties / human rights of what the FSF calls the software user's "Four Essential Freedoms".[12]

  • The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
  • The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
  • The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
  • The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.[12]

Open source

The Open Source Definition is used by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) to determine whether a software license qualifies for the organization's insignia for open-source software. The definition was based on the Debian Free Software Guidelines, written and adapted primarily by Bruce Perens.[13][14] Perens did not base his writing on the Four Essential Freedoms of free software from the Free Software Foundation, which were only later available on the web.[15] Perens subsequently stated that he felt Eric Raymond's promotion of open-source unfairly overshadowed the Free Software Foundation's efforts and reaffirmed his support for free software.[16] In the following 2000s, he spoke about open source again.[17][18]

History

Main article: History of free and open-source software

From the 1950s and on through the 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[19] (Note that FOSS is not the same as public domain software, as public domain software does not contain copyrights[20]). Most companies had a business model based on hardware sales, and provided or bundled software with hardware, free of charge.[21]

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 who were able to better meet their own needs did not want the costs of software bundled with hardware product costs. In United States vs. IBM, filed January 17, 1969, the government charged that bundled software was anticompetitive.[22] While some software was still being provided without monetary cost and license restriction, there was a growing amount of software that was only at a monetary cost with restricted licensing. 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[23]—previously, computer programs could be considered ideas, procedures, methods, systems, and processes, which are not copyrightable.[24][25]

Early on, closed-source software was uncommon until the mid-1970s to the 1980s, when IBM implemented in 1983 an "object code only" policy, no longer distributing source code.[26][27][28]

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.[29] Software development for the GNU operating system began in January 1984, and the Free 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 Definition and "copyleft" ideas. The FSF takes the position that the fundamental issue Free software addresses is an ethical one—to ensure software users can exercise what it calls "The Four Essential Freedoms".[3]

The Linux kernel, created by Linus Torvalds, was released as freely modifiable source code in 1991. Initially, Linux was not released under either a Free software or an Open-source software license. However, with version 0.12 in February 1992, he relicensed the project under the GNU General Public License.[30]

FreeBSD and NetBSD (both derived from 386BSD) were released as Free software when the USL v. BSDi lawsuit was settled out of court in 1993. OpenBSD forked from NetBSD in 1995. Also in 1995, The Apache HTTP Server, commonly referred to as Apache, was released under the 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 Internet suite as Free software. This code is today better known as Mozilla 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 was founded in February 1998 to encourage the use of the new term and evangelize open-source principles.[31]

While the 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 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."[32] This view perfectly summarizes the initial response to FOSS by some software corporations.[citation needed] For many years FOSS played a niche role outside of the mainstream of private software development. However the success of FOSS Operating Systems such as Linux, BSD and the companies based on FOSS such as Red Hat, has changed the software industry's attitude and there has been a dramatic shift in the corporate philosophy concerning its development.[33]

Usage

See also: Linux adoption, Free software § Adoption, and Open-source software § Adoption

FOSS benefits over proprietary software

Personal control, customizability and freedom

See also: Vendor lock-in

Users of FOSS benefit from the Four Essential Freedoms to make unrestricted use of, and to study, copy, modify, and redistribute such software with or without modification. 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.[34][35][36][37][38]

Privacy and security

See also: Open-source software security, Surveillance capitalism, Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present), and Software update system

Manufacturers of proprietary, closed-source software are sometimes pressured to building in backdoors or other covert, undesired features into their software.[39][40][41][42] 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.[38] As proprietary code is typically hidden from public view, only the vendors themselves and hackers may be aware of any vulnerabilities in them[38] while FOSS involves as many people as possible for exposing bugs quickly.[43][44]

Low costs or no costs

FOSS is often free of charge although donations are often encouraged. This also allows users to better test and compare software.[38]

Quality, collaboration and efficiency

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.[38] It has been shown that technical superiority is typically the primary reason why companies choose open source software.[38]

Drawbacks compared to proprietary software

Security and user-support

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.[38][43][45]

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.[43]

Hardware and software compatibility

Further information: Software incompatibility and System requirements

Sometimes, 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.[46][47][48][49][50][51][52]

Bugs and missing features

See also: § Quality, collaboration and efficiency

While FOSS can be superior to proprietary equivalents in terms of software features and stability, in many cases it has more unfixed bugs and missing features when compared to similar commercial software.[53][additional citation(s) needed] This varies per case, and usually depends on the level of interest in a particular project. However, unlike close-sourced software, improvements can be made by anyone who has the motivation, time and skill to do so.[45][additional citation(s) needed]

A common obstacle in FOSS development is the lack of access to some common official standards, due to costly royalties or required non-disclosure agreements (e.g., for the DVD-Video format).[54]

Less guarantee of development

There is often less certainty of FOSS projects gaining the required resources and participation for continued development than commercial software backed by companies.[55][additional citation(s) needed] However, companies also often abolish projects for being unprofitable, yet large companies may rely on, and hence co-develop, open source software.[44] On the other hand, if the vendor of proprietary software ceases development, there are no alternatives; whereas with FOSS, any user who needs it still has the right, and the source-code, to continue to develop it themself, or pay a 3rd party to do so.

Missing applications

As the FOSS operating system distributions of Linux has a lower market share of end users there are also fewer applications available.[56][57]

Adoption by governments

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
Country Description
Brazil In 2006, the Brazilian government has simultaneously encouraged the distribution of cheap computers running Linux throughout its poorer communities by subsidizing their purchase with tax breaks.[58]
Ecuador In April 2008,[59] Ecuador passed a similar law, Decree 1014, designed to migrate the public sector to Libre Software.[60]
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 Office with OpenOffice.org across the entire organization.[61] In September 2012, the French Prime Minister laid down a set of action-oriented recommendations about using open-source in the French public administration.[62] These recommendations are published in a document based on the works of an inter-ministerial group of experts.[63] 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.[64]
Germany In the German City of Munich, conversion of 15,000 PCs and laptops from Microsoft Windows-based operating systems to a Debian-based Linux environment called LiMux spanned the ten years of 2003 to 2013. After successful completion of the project, more than 80% of all computers were running Linux.[65] On November 13, 2017 The Register reported that Munich was planning to revert to Windows 10 by 2020.[66] But in 2020, Munich decided to shift back from Microsoft to Linux again.[67] In 2022 Germany launched[68] Open CoDE, its own FOSS repository and forum.
India The Government of Kerala, India, announced its official support for FOSS software in its State IT Policy of 2001,[69][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 started the International Centre for Free and Open Source Software (ICFOSS).[70] In March 2015 the Indian government announced a policy on adoption of FOSS.[71][72]
Italy The Italian military is transitioning to LibreOffice and the OpenDocument Format (ODF). LibreItalia Association announced on September 15, 2015 that the Ministry of Defence would 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.[73] By June 23, 2016, 6 thousand stations have been migrated.[74] E-learning military platform.[75][needs update]
Jordan In January 2010, the Government of 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.[76]
Malaysia Malaysia launched the "Malaysian Public Sector Open Source Software Program", saving millions on proprietary software licenses until 2008.[77][78]
Peru In 2005 the Government of Peru voted to adopt open source across all its bodies.[79] 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."[80]
Uganda In September 2014, the Uganda National Information Technology Authority (NITA-U) announced a call for feedback on an Open Source Strategy & Policy[81] at a workshop in conjunction with the ICT Association of Uganda (ICTAU).
United States In February 2009, the White House moved its website to Linux servers using Drupal for content management.[82] In August 2016, the 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).[83] 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".[83] As yet unspecified OSS licenses will be added to the code.[84]
Venezuela In 2004, a law in Venezuela (Decree 3390) went into effect, mandating a two-year transition to open source in all public agencies. As of June 2009, the transition was still under way.[85][86][needs update]

Adoption by supranational unions and international organizations

European Union

"We migrated key functions from Windows to 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 (ISS), regarding why they chose to switch from Windows to Linux on the ISS.[87][88]

In 2017, the 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.[89]

In 2020 the European Commission adopted its Open Source Strategy 2020-2023,[90] including encouraging sharing and reuse of software and publishing Commission’s source code as key objectives. Among concrete actions there is also to set up an Open Source Programme Office in 2020[91] and in 2022 it launched its own FOSS repository https://code.europa.eu/.[92]

In 2021 the Commission Decision on the open source licensing and reuse of Commission

software (2021/C 495 I/01)[93] was adopted, under which, as a general principle, the European Commission may release software under EUPL or another FOSS license, if more appropriate. There are exceptions though.

In May 2022[94] the Expert group on the Interoperability of European Public Services came published 27 recommendations to strengthen the interoperability of public administrations across the EU. These recommendations are to be taken into account later in the same year in Commission’s proposal of the “Interoperable Europe Act”.

Production

See also: Open-source software development

Issues and incidents

GPLv3 controversy

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 Act (DMCA), the Free Software Foundation released version 3 of its GNU Public License (GNU GPLv3) in 2007 that explicitly addressed the DMCA and patent rights.

After the development of the GNU GPLv3 in 2007, the FSF (as the 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,[95] several projects decided against upgrading. For instance the Linux kernel,[96][97] the BusyBox[98][99] project, AdvFS,[100] Blender,[101] and the VLC media player decided against adopting the GPLv3.[102]

Apple, a user of GCC and a heavy user of both DRM and patents, switched the compiler in its Xcode IDE from GCC to Clang, which is another FOSS compiler[103] but is under a permissive license.[104] LWN speculated that Apple was motivated partly by a desire to avoid GPLv3.[103] The Samba project also switched to GPLv3, so Apple replaced Samba in their software suite by a closed-source, proprietary software alternative.[105]

Skewed prioritization, ineffectiveness and egoism of developers

See also: Issue tracking system

Leemhuis criticizes the prioritization of skilled developers who − instead of fixing issues in already popular open-source applications and desktop environments − create new, mostly redundant software to gain fame and fortune.[106]

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 Linux on notebooks such as the unnecessary power consumption.[106]

Commercial ownership of open-source software

Mergers have affected major open-source software. Sun Microsystems (Sun) acquired MySQL AB, owner of the popular open-source MySQL database, in 2008.[107]

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 database have raised concerns in the FOSS community.[108] 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.[109] All of these have distinct names; they are distinct projects and cannot use the trademarked name MySQL.[110]

Legal cases

Oracle v. Google

Main article: Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.

In August 2010, Oracle sued Google, claiming that its use of Java in Android infringed on Oracle's copyrights and patents. In May 2012, the trial judge determined that Google did not infringe on Oracle's patents and ruled that the structure of the Java APIs used by Google was not copyrightable. The jury found that Google infringed a small number of copied files, but the parties stipulated that Google would pay no damages.[111] Oracle appealed to the Federal Circuit, and Google filed a cross-appeal on the literal copying claim.[112]

As part/driver of a new socio-economic model

Main article: Open-source model
See also: Commons-based peer production, Open content, 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 (FOSS) movement counters neoliberalism and privatization in general.[113][114]

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.[114]

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.[115]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ FOSS is an inclusive term that covers both free software and open-source software, which despite describing similar development models, have differing cultures and philosophical backgrounds.[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

  1. ^ Feller 2005, pp. 89, 362.
  2. ^ Feller 2005, pp. 101–106, 110–111.
  3. ^ a b c "What is free software? The Free Software Definition". The GNU Project -- GNU.org. 2018-06-12. from the original on 2013-10-14. Retrieved 2018-09-15.
  4. ^ Hatlestad 2005.
  5. ^ Claburn 2007.
  6. ^ Stallman, Richard. "FLOSS and FOSS". The GNU Project -- GNU.org. from the original on 2018-09-16. Retrieved 2018-09-15.
  7. ^ Stallman, Richard. "FLOSS and FOSS". www.gnu.org. from the original on 2018-09-16. Retrieved 2018-09-15.
  8. ^ "GNU.org". 20 September 2011. from the original on 14 October 2013. Retrieved 23 October 2011.
  9. ^ Maracke, Catharina (2019-02-25). "Free and Open Source Software and FRAND‐based patent licenses: How to mediate between Standard Essential Patent and Free and Open Source Software". The Journal of World Intellectual Property. 22 (3–4): 78–102. doi:10.1111/jwip.12114. ISSN 1422-2213. S2CID 159111696.
  10. ^ "GNU's Bulletin, Volume 1 Number 1, page 8". GNU.org. from the original on 2015-06-23. Retrieved 2015-06-20.
  11. ^ "The Free Software Definition – Translations of this page". GNU.org. from the original on 2013-10-14. Retrieved 2014-04-18.
  12. ^ a b Free Software Foundation (27 December 2016). "What is free software? The Free Software Definition". The GNU Project -- GNU.org. from the original on 14 October 2013. Retrieved 15 September 2018.
  13. ^ "The Open Source Definition by Bruce Perens". 1999-03-29. from the original on 2014-09-15. Retrieved 2016-01-20., Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution, January 1999, ISBN 1-56592-582-3
  14. ^ "The Open Source Definition". from the original on 2013-10-15. Retrieved 2015-06-20., The Open Source Definition according to the Open Source Initiative
  15. ^ "Slashdot.org". News.slashdot.org. 16 February 2009. from the original on 17 July 2013. Retrieved 23 October 2011.
  16. ^ . Archived from the original on 2014-07-16.
  17. ^ . Perens.com. 1998-02-09. Archived from the original on 4 November 2013. Retrieved 2009-07-15.
  18. ^ Barr, Joe (January 13, 2003). "Meet the Perens". LinuxWorld Magazine. from the original on November 6, 2013. Retrieved February 18, 2017.
  19. ^ Shea, Tom (1983-06-23). "Free software - Free software is a junkyard of software spare parts". InfoWorld. from the original on 2021-04-28. Retrieved 2016-02-10.
  20. ^ Corbly, James Edward (2014-09-25). "The Free Software Alternative: Freeware, Open Source Software, and Libraries". Information Technology and Libraries. 33 (3): 65. doi:10.6017/ital.v33i3.5105. ISSN 2163-5226. from the original on 2021-05-01. Retrieved 2021-04-28.
  21. ^ Gates, Bill (February 3, 1976), An Open Letter to Hobbyists, from the original on April 16, 2018, retrieved September 17, 2017
  22. ^ Fisher, McKie & Mancke 1983.
  23. ^ Computer Software 1980 Copyright Act, Pub. L. No. 96-517, 94 Stat. 3015, 3028 2013-03-30 at the Wayback Machine.
  24. ^ "Copyright Basics". www.lib.purdue.edu. from the original on 2015-06-30. Retrieved 2015-04-01.
  25. ^ Weber 2009.
  26. ^ Object code only: is IBM playing fair? 2021-04-29 at the Wayback Machine IBM's OCO policy protects its own assets but may threaten customers investment on Computerworld - 8 Febr. 1988
  27. ^ Firm sidestep IBM policy by banning software changes 2021-08-18 at the Wayback Machine on Computerworld (18 March 1985)
  28. ^ Gallant, John (1985-03-18). "IBM policy draws fire – Users say source code rules hamper change". Computerworld. from the original on 2021-08-18. 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
  29. ^ William 2002.
  30. ^ "Release notes for Linux kernel 0.12". Kernel.org. from the original on 2007-08-19. Retrieved 2016-07-25.
  31. ^ "History of the OSI". Opensource.org. from the original on 2012-07-26. Retrieved 2014-02-02.
  32. ^ Charny 2001.
  33. ^ Miller, Voas & Costello 2010, pp. 14–16.
  34. ^ Kirk, St Amant (2007). Handbook of 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.
  35. ^ Jacquart, Rene (2008). Building the Information Society: IFIP 18th World Computer Congress Topical Sessions 22–27 August 2004 Toulouse, France. Springer. ISBN 9781402081576. Retrieved 4 July 2017.
  36. ^ Lopez-Tarruella, Aurelio (2012). Google and the Law: Empirical Approaches to Legal Aspects of Knowledge-Economy Business Models. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 9789067048453. from the original on 30 December 2019. Retrieved 4 July 2017.
  37. ^ "What is free software?". www.gnu.org. from the original on 3 July 2017. Retrieved 4 July 2017.
  38. ^ a b c d e f g "10 Reasons Open Source Is Good for Business". PCWorld. 2010-11-05. from the original on 22 June 2017. Retrieved 4 July 2017.
  39. ^ "Microsoft Back Doors". www.gnu.org. from the original on 28 June 2017. Retrieved 4 July 2017.
  40. ^ "Microsoft Accidentally Leaks Key to Windows Backdoor - Schneier on Security". www.schneier.com. from the original on 25 August 2017. Retrieved 4 July 2017.
  41. ^ Thomson, Iain. "Snowden leak: Microsoft added Outlook.com backdoor for Feds". The Register. from the original on 25 August 2017. Retrieved 4 July 2017.
  42. ^ Strandburg, Katherine J.; Raicu, Daniela Stan (2005). Privacy and Technologies of Identity: A Cross-Disciplinary Conversation. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 9780387260501. Retrieved 4 July 2017.
  43. ^ a b c "Is Open Source Software More Secure?" (PDF). (PDF) from the original on 24 July 2017. Retrieved 4 July 2017.
  44. ^ a b "Open source software is more secure than you think". SC Media US. 8 October 2013. from the original on 25 August 2017. Retrieved 12 July 2017.
  45. ^ a b "Too Big to Fail Open-Source Software Needs Hacker Help". Observer. 4 November 2016. from the original on 22 July 2017. Retrieved 12 July 2017.
  46. ^ Fogel, Karl (2005). Producing Open Source Software: How to Run a Successful Free Software Project. "O'Reilly Media, Inc.". ISBN 9780596552992. Retrieved 4 July 2017.
  47. ^ Sery, Paul G. (2007). Ubuntu Linux For Dummies. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9780470125052. Retrieved 4 July 2017.
  48. ^ "Linux Today - KERNEL-DEV: UDI and Free Software by Richard Stallman". www.linuxtoday.com. from the original on 25 August 2017. Retrieved 4 July 2017.
  49. ^ Vaughan-Nichols, Steven J. "Microsoft tries to block Linux off Windows 8 PCs | ZDNet". ZDNet. from the original on 14 July 2017. Retrieved 12 July 2017.
  50. ^ Kingsley-Hughes, Adrian. "Lenovo reportedly blocking Linux on Windows 10 Signature Edition PCs (updated) | ZDNet". ZDNet. from the original on 14 July 2017. Retrieved 12 July 2017.
  51. ^ "Linux Today - How Microsoft Changes the Prices at OEMs to Block GNU/Linux Sales". www.linuxtoday.com. from the original on 25 August 2017. Retrieved 12 July 2017.
  52. ^ "Microsoft 'killed Dell Linux' – States". The Register. from the original on 17 July 2017. Retrieved 12 July 2017.
  53. ^ Hill, Benjamin Mako. "When Free Software Isn't (Practically) Superior". from the original on 13 July 2017. Retrieved 11 July 2017.
  54. ^ DVD FLLC (2009) How To Obtain DVD Format/Logo License (2005–2009)
  55. ^ Arthur, Tatnall (2007). Encyclopedia of Portal Technologies and Applications. Idea Group Inc (IGI). ISBN 9781591409908. Retrieved 11 July 2017.
  56. ^ Baldauf, Kenneth; Stair, Ralph (2008). Succeeding with Technology. Cengage Learning. ISBN 978-1423925293. Retrieved 12 July 2017.
  57. ^ Mastering Information Technology for CXC CSEC CAPE. Dennis Adonis. Retrieved 12 July 2017.
  58. ^ Casson & Ryan 2006.
  59. ^ . Archived from the original on 2014-12-18.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  60. ^ (in Spanish) Estebanmendieta.com 2014-06-28 at the Wayback Machine, Decree 1014
  61. ^ Paul 2009.
  62. ^ [1] 2017-08-27 at the Wayback Machine PM Bulletin (Circular letter) #5608-SG of September 19th, 2012
  63. ^ [2] 2018-09-10 at the Wayback Machine Use of the open-source software in the administration
  64. ^ [3] 2017-08-27 at the Wayback Machine Interministerial base of open-source applications
  65. ^ (in German). Muenchen.de. Archived from the original on 2014-08-27. Retrieved 2014-07-28.
  66. ^ "Munich council: To hell with Linux, we're going full Windows in 2020". from the original on 2017-12-01. Retrieved 2017-12-04.
  67. ^ "Linux not Windows: Why Munich is shifting back from Microsoft to open source – again". from the original on 2021-04-09. Retrieved 2021-04-17.
  68. ^ Riordan, Ciarán O. (2022-09-20). "Germany launches opencode.de | Joinup". joinup.ec.europa.eu. Retrieved 2022-10-24.
  69. ^ ""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). (PDF) from the original on 2013-11-03. Retrieved 2014-02-02.
  70. ^ "Kerala IT | Welcome". www.keralait.org. from the original on 2019-10-26. Retrieved 2019-09-18.
  71. ^ Alawadhi 2015.
  72. ^ "Policy on Adoption of Open Source Software for Government of India" (PDF). (PDF) from the original on 2015-08-15.
  73. ^ "Italian military to switch to… | Joinup". joinup.ec.europa.eu. 15 September 2015. from the original on 2019-09-21. Retrieved 2019-09-18.
  74. ^ . LibreItalia (in Italian). 23 June 2016. Archived from the original on 9 October 2017. Retrieved 10 May 2018.
  75. ^ . el-stelmilit.difesa.it. Archived from the original on 2017-10-09. Retrieved 2017-10-09.
  76. ^ "Jordan Information Ministry signs deal on open source - Government - News & Features". ITP.net. from the original on 2012-08-04. Retrieved 2012-04-23.
  77. ^ . Archived from the original on 2011-10-27. Retrieved 23 October 2011.
  78. ^ . Archived from the original on 2011-10-05. Retrieved 23 October 2011.
  79. ^ Clarke 2005.
  80. ^ National Advisory Council on Innovation Open Software Working Group (July 2004). (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on December 22, 2014. Retrieved 31 May 2008.
  81. ^ . Archived from the original on September 27, 2014.
  82. ^ Vaughan-Nichols 2009.
  83. ^ 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 — 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. (PDF) from the original on 21 January 2017. Retrieved 2016-09-14. Also available as HTML at: sourcecode.cio.gov
  84. ^ New, William (22 August 2016). "New US Government Source Code Policy Could Provide Model For Europe". Intellectual Property Watch. Geneva, Switzerland. from the original on 28 August 2016. Retrieved 2016-09-14.
  85. ^ . Archived from the original on February 16, 2008.
  86. ^ Chavez, Hugo F. (December 2004). . Archived from the original on 9 August 2011. Retrieved 23 October 2011.
  87. ^ Gunter 2013.
  88. ^ Bridgewater 2013.
  89. ^ 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. from the original on 2017-05-06. Retrieved 2017-03-27.
  90. ^ "Open source software strategy". European Commission - European Commission. Retrieved 2022-10-24.
  91. ^ "EC Open Source Programme Office | Joinup". joinup.ec.europa.eu. Retrieved 2022-10-24.
  92. ^ Riordan, Ciarán O. (2022-09-19). "EC's code.europa.eu launches | Joinup". joinup.ec.europa.eu. Retrieved 2022-10-24.
  93. ^ "COMMISSION DECISION of 8 December 2021 on the open source licensing and reuse of Commission software (2021/C 495 I/01)". Official Journal of the European Union. 2021-12-08.
  94. ^ GAUKEMA, Laurens (2022-05-13). "Official expert recommendations for a new Interoperability Policy | Joinup". joinup.ec.europa.eu. Retrieved 2022-10-24.
  95. ^ Mark (2008-05-08). . socializedsoftware.com. Archived from the original on 2015-12-08. 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.
  96. ^ Torvalds, Linus. "COPYING". kernel.org. from the original on 17 December 2015. 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.
  97. ^ Kerner, Sean Michael (2008-01-08). "Torvalds Still Keen On GPLv2". internetnews.com. from the original on 2015-02-12. Retrieved 2015-02-12. "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."
  98. ^ corbet (2006-10-01). "Busy busy busybox". lwn.net. from the original on 2016-01-07. Retrieved 2015-11-21. 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
  99. ^ Landley, Rob (2006-09-09). "Re: Move GPLv2 vs v3 fun..." lwn.net. from the original on 2016-01-07. Retrieved 2015-11-21. 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.
  100. ^ "HP Press Release: HP Contributes Source Code to Open Source Community to Advance Adoption of Linux". www.hp.com. from the original on 2011-12-27. Retrieved 2016-01-14.
  101. ^ Prokoudine, Alexandre (26 January 2012). . 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."
  102. ^ Denis-Courmont, Rémi. "VLC media player to remain under GNU GPL version 2". videolan.org. from the original on 2015-11-22. 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 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.
  103. ^ a b Brockmeier 2010.
  104. ^ "LLVM Developer Policy". LLVM. from the original on November 13, 2012. Retrieved November 19, 2012.
  105. ^ Holwerda 2011.
  106. ^ a b Leemhuis, Thorsten. "Kommentar: Linux scheitert an Egozentrik" (in German). heise online. from the original on 7 July 2017. Retrieved 12 July 2017.
  107. ^ . MySQL AB. Archived from the original on 2011-07-18. Retrieved 2008-01-16.
  108. ^ Thomson 2011.
  109. ^ Samson 2011.
  110. ^ Nelson 2009.
  111. ^ Niccolai 2012.
  112. ^ Jones 2012.
  113. ^ Berry, David M. (2008). Copy, Rip Burn: The Politics of Copyleft and Open Source (1 ed.). London: Pluto Press. p. 272. ISBN 978-0745324142. from the original on 2021-07-09. Retrieved 2021-03-25.
  114. ^ a b Georgopoulou, Panayiota (2009). "The free/open source software movement Resistance or change?". Civitas - Revista de Ciências Sociais. 9 (1). doi:10.15448/1984-7289.2009.1.5569. ISSN 1519-6089. from the original on 13 July 2017. Retrieved 11 July 2017.
  115. ^ Benkler 2003.

Sources

  • Alawadhi, Neha (March 30, 2015). "Government announces policy on open source software". The Times of India. from the original on 2016-01-10. Retrieved 2015-06-27.
  • Benkler, Yochai (April 2003). . Duke Law Journal. 52 (6). Archived from the original on 2011-03-06. Retrieved 2014-01-08.
  • Bridgewater, Adrian (May 13, 2013). "International Space Station adopts Debian Linux, drops Windows & Red Hat into airlock". Computer Weekly. from the original on 2015-06-24. Retrieved 2015-06-27.
  • Brockmeier, Joe (September 15, 2010). "Apple's Selective Contributions to GCC". LWN.net. from the original on 2020-01-01. 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 (ed.). Standards Edge: Unifier or Divider?. Sheridan Books. p. 87. ISBN 978-0974864853. SSRN 1656616.
  • Charny, B. (May 3, 2001). "Microsoft Raps Open-Source Approach". CNET News. from the original on July 29, 2012. Retrieved February 15, 2022.
  • 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. from the original on 2011-11-09. Retrieved 2015-06-27.
  • ElBoghdady, Dina; Tsukayama, Hayley (September 29, 2011). "Facebook tracking prompts calls for FTC investigation". The Washington Post. from the original on 2015-06-30. Retrieved 2015-06-27.
  • Feller, Joseph, ed. (2005). Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0262062466.
  • Fisher, Franklin M.; McKie, James W.; Mancke, Richard B. (1983). IBM and the U.S. Data Processing Industry: An Economic History. Praeger. ISBN 978-0-03-063059-0.
  • Gunter, Joel (May 10, 2013). "International Space Station to boldly go with Linux over Windows". The Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2022-01-11. Retrieved 2015-06-27.
  • Hatlestad, Luc (August 9, 2005). . 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. from the original on 2012-01-14. Retrieved 2015-06-22.
  • Jones, Pamela (October 5, 2012). . Groklaw. Archived from the original on 2012-12-01. 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. S2CID 24463978.
  • Nelson, Russell (December 13, 2009). "Open Source, MySQL, and trademarks". Opensource.org. Open Source Initiative. from the original on 2011-10-21. Retrieved 2015-06-22.
  • Niccolai, James (June 20, 2012). "Oracle agrees to 'zero' damages in Google lawsuit, eyes appeal". Computerworld. from the original on 2012-11-17. Retrieved 2015-06-22.
  • Paul, Ryan (March 11, 2009). "French police: we saved millions of euros by adopting Ubuntu". Ars Technica. from the original on 2009-03-13. Retrieved 2015-06-27.
  • Perens, Bruce (1999). "The Open Source Definition". Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution. O'Reilly Media. ISBN 978-1-56592-582-3.
  • Samson, Ted (March 17, 2011). "Non-Oracle MySQL fork deemed ready for prime time". InfoWorld. from the original on 2015-06-23. Retrieved 2015-06-22.
  • Stallman, Richard (n.d.). "Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software". GNU.org. Free Software Foundation. from the original on 2011-08-04. Retrieved 2015-06-27.
  • Thomson, Iain (September 16, 2011). "Oracle offers commercial extensions to MySQL". The Register. from the original on 2019-10-26. Retrieved 2015-06-22.
  • Vaughan-Nichols, Steven J. (October 29, 2009). . PCWorld. Archived from the original on 2009-10-31. Retrieved 2015-06-27.
  • Vaughan-Nichols, Steven (January 8, 2011). "No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store". ZDNet. from the original on 2014-11-15. 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

  • Barr, Joe (1998). . Free Software Foundation. Archived from the original on 2007-07-03. Retrieved 2007-11-25.
  • Berry, David (2008). Copy, Rip, Burn: The Politics of Copyleft and Open Source (1 ed.). London: Pluto Press. p. 272. ISBN 978-0745324142. from the original on 2021-07-09. Retrieved 2021-03-25.
  • Salus, Peter H. (March 28, 2005). "A History of Free and Open Source". Groklaw. from the original on 2015-09-24. Retrieved 2015-06-22.
  • Vetter, G. (2009). "Commercial Free and Open Source Software: Knowledge Production, Hybrid Appropriability, and Patents". Fordham Law Review. 77 (5): 2087–2141. from the original on 2012-04-24. Retrieved 2011-10-23.
  • Wheeler, David A. (May 8, 2014). "Why Open Source Software / Free Software (OSS/FS, FLOSS, or FOSS)? Look at the Numbers!". DWheeler.com. from the original on 2015-06-21. Retrieved 2015-06-22.

External links

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

January 13, 2023
free, open, source, software, floss, foss, free, open, source, redirect, here, hardware, open, source, hardware, other, uses, foss, foss, disambiguation, other, uses, floss, floss, disambiguation, foss, term, used, refer, groups, software, consisting, both, fr. FLOSS FOSS and Free and Open source redirect here For hardware see Open source hardware For other uses of Foss see Foss disambiguation For other uses of Floss see Floss disambiguation Free and open source software FOSS is a term used to refer to groups of software consisting of both free software and open source software a where 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 licensing and the source code is usually hidden from the users A screenshot of free and open source software FOSS Fedora Linux 36 running the KDE Plasma 5 desktop environment Firefox Dolphin file manager VLC media player LibreOffice Writer GIMP and KCalc FOSS maintains the software user s civil liberty rights see the Four Essential Freedoms below Other 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 and open source operating systems such as Linux and descendants of BSD are widely utilized today powering millions of servers desktops smartphones e g Android and other devices 4 5 Free software licenses and open source licenses are used by many software packages The free software movement and the open source software movement are online social movements behind widespread production and adoption of FOSS with the former preferring to use the terms FLOSS or free libre Contents 1 Overview 1 1 Free software 1 1 1 Four essential freedoms of Free Software 1 2 Open source 2 History 3 Usage 3 1 FOSS benefits over proprietary software 3 1 1 Personal control customizability and freedom 3 1 2 Privacy and security 3 1 3 Low costs or no costs 3 1 4 Quality collaboration and efficiency 3 2 Drawbacks compared 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 guarantee of development 3 2 5 Missing applications 3 3 Adoption by governments 3 4 Adoption by supranational unions and international organizations 3 4 1 European Union 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 socio economic model 7 See also 8 Notes 9 References 9 1 Sources 10 Further reading 11 External linksOverview EditFurther information Alternative terms for free software Free and open source software FOSS is an umbrella term for software that is simultaneously considered both free software and open source software FOSS 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 The term free software does not refer to the monetary cost of the software at all but rather whether the license maintains the software user s civil liberties free as in free speech not as in free beer 3 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 or F LOSS is preferred by FSF over FOSS while free or free libre is their preferred term 6 Although there is almost a complete overlap between free software licenses and open source software licenses there is a strong philosophical disagreement between the advocates of these two positions The terminology of FOSS or Free and Open source software was created to be a neutral on these philosophical disagreements between the FSF and OSI and have a single unified term that could refer to both concepts 7 Free software Edit Richard Stallman s Free Software Definition adopted by the Free Software Foundation FSF defines free software as a matter of liberty not price 8 9 and it upholds the Four Essential Freedoms The earliest known publication of the definition of his free software idea was in the February 1986 edition 10 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 website As of August 2017 it is published in 40 languages 11 Four essential freedoms of Free Software Edit To meet the definition of free software the FSF requires the software s licensing respect the civil liberties human rights of what the FSF calls the software user s Four Essential Freedoms 12 The freedom to run the program as you wish for any purpose freedom 0 The freedom to study how the program works and change it so it does your computing as you wish freedom 1 Access to the source code is a precondition for this The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others freedom 2 The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others freedom 3 By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes Access to the source code is a precondition for this 12 Open source Edit The Open Source Definition is used by the Open Source Initiative OSI to determine whether a software license qualifies for the organization s insignia for open source software The definition was based on the Debian Free Software Guidelines written and adapted primarily by Bruce Perens 13 14 Perens did not base his writing on the Four Essential Freedoms of free software from the Free Software Foundation which were only later available on the web 15 Perens subsequently stated that he felt Eric Raymond s promotion of open source unfairly overshadowed the Free Software Foundation s efforts and reaffirmed his support for free software 16 In the following 2000s he spoke about open source again 17 18 History EditMain 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 From the 1950s and on through the 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 19 Note that FOSS is not the same as public domain software as public domain software does not contain copyrights 20 Most companies had a business model based on hardware sales and provided or bundled software with hardware free of charge 21 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 who were able to better meet their own needs did not want the costs of software bundled with hardware product costs In United States vs IBM filed January 17 1969 the government charged that bundled software was anticompetitive 22 While some software was still being provided without monetary cost and license restriction there was a growing amount of software that was only at a monetary cost with restricted licensing 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 23 previously computer programs could be considered ideas procedures methods systems and processes which are not copyrightable 24 25 Early on closed source software was uncommon until the mid 1970s to the 1980s when IBM implemented in 1983 an object code only policy no longer distributing source code 26 27 28 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 29 Software development for the GNU operating system began in January 1984 and the Free 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 Definition and copyleft ideas The FSF takes the position that the fundamental issue Free software addresses is an ethical one to ensure software users can exercise what it calls The Four Essential Freedoms 3 The Linux kernel created by Linus Torvalds was released as freely modifiable source code in 1991 Initially Linux was not released under either a Free software or an Open source software license However with version 0 12 in February 1992 he relicensed the project under the GNU General Public License 30 FreeBSD and NetBSD both derived from 386BSD were released as Free software when the USL v BSDi lawsuit was settled out of court in 1993 OpenBSD forked from NetBSD in 1995 Also in 1995 The Apache HTTP Server commonly referred to as Apache was released under the 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 Internet suite as Free software This code is today better known as Mozilla 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 was founded in February 1998 to encourage the use of the new term and evangelize open source principles 31 While the 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 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 32 This view perfectly summarizes the initial response to FOSS by some software corporations citation needed For many years FOSS played a niche role outside of the mainstream of private software development However the success of FOSS Operating Systems such as Linux BSD and the companies based on FOSS such as Red Hat has changed the software industry s attitude and there has been a dramatic shift in the corporate philosophy concerning its development 33 Usage EditSee also Linux adoption Free software Adoption and Open source software Adoption FOSS benefits over proprietary software Edit Personal control customizability and freedom Edit See also Vendor lock in Users of FOSS benefit from the Four Essential Freedoms to make unrestricted use of and to study copy modify and redistribute such software with or without modification 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 34 35 36 37 38 Privacy and security Edit See also Open source software security Surveillance capitalism Global surveillance disclosures 2013 present and Software update system Manufacturers of proprietary closed source software are sometimes pressured to building in backdoors or other covert undesired features into their software 39 40 41 42 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 38 As proprietary code is typically hidden from public view only the vendors themselves and hackers may be aware of any vulnerabilities in them 38 while FOSS involves as many people as possible for exposing bugs quickly 43 44 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 38 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 38 It has been shown that technical superiority is typically the primary reason why companies choose open source software 38 Drawbacks compared 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 38 43 45 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 43 Hardware and software compatibility Edit Further information Software incompatibility and System requirements Sometimes 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 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 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 it has more unfixed bugs and missing features when compared to similar commercial software 53 additional citation s needed This varies per case and usually depends on the level of interest in a particular project However unlike close sourced software improvements can be made by anyone who has the motivation time and skill to do so 45 additional citation s needed A common obstacle in FOSS development is the lack of access to some common official standards due to costly royalties or required non disclosure agreements e g for the DVD Video format 54 Less guarantee of development Edit There is often less certainty of FOSS projects gaining the required resources and participation for continued development than commercial software backed by companies 55 additional citation s needed However companies also often abolish projects for being unprofitable yet large companies may rely on and hence co develop open source software 44 On the other hand if the vendor of proprietary software ceases development there are no alternatives whereas with FOSS any user who needs it still has the right and the source code to continue to develop it themself or pay a 3rd party to do so Missing applications Edit As the FOSS operating system distributions of Linux has a lower market share of end users there are also fewer applications available 56 57 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 adding missing items July 2017 Country DescriptionBrazil In 2006 the Brazilian government has simultaneously encouraged the distribution of cheap computers running Linux throughout its poorer communities by subsidizing their purchase with tax breaks 58 Ecuador In April 2008 59 Ecuador passed a similar law Decree 1014 designed to migrate the public sector to Libre Software 60 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 Office with OpenOffice org across the entire organization 61 In September 2012 the French Prime Minister laid down a set of action oriented recommendations about using open source in the French public administration 62 These recommendations are published in a document based on the works of an inter ministerial group of experts 63 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 64 Germany In the German City of Munich conversion of 15 000 PCs and laptops from Microsoft Windows based operating systems to a Debian based Linux environment called LiMux spanned the ten years of 2003 to 2013 After successful completion of the project more than 80 of all computers were running Linux 65 On November 13 2017 The Register reported that Munich was planning to revert to Windows 10 by 2020 66 But in 2020 Munich decided to shift back from Microsoft to Linux again 67 In 2022 Germany launched 68 Open CoDE its own FOSS repository and forum India The Government of Kerala India announced its official support for FOSS software in its State IT Policy of 2001 69 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 started the International Centre for Free and Open Source Software ICFOSS 70 In March 2015 the Indian government announced a policy on adoption of FOSS 71 72 Italy The Italian military is transitioning to LibreOffice and the OpenDocument Format ODF LibreItalia Association announced on September 15 2015 that the Ministry of Defence would 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 73 By June 23 2016 6 thousand stations have been migrated 74 E learning military platform 75 needs update Jordan In January 2010 the Government of 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 76 Malaysia Malaysia launched the Malaysian Public Sector Open Source Software Program saving millions on proprietary software licenses until 2008 77 78 Peru In 2005 the Government of Peru voted to adopt open source across all its bodies 79 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 80 Uganda In September 2014 the Uganda National Information Technology Authority NITA U announced a call for feedback on an Open Source Strategy amp Policy 81 at a workshop in conjunction with the ICT Association of Uganda ICTAU United States In February 2009 the White House moved its website to Linux servers using Drupal for content management 82 In August 2016 the 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 83 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 wbr 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 83 As yet unspecified OSS licenses will be added to the code 84 Venezuela In 2004 a law in 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 85 86 needs update Adoption by supranational unions and international organizations Edit European Union Edit We migrated key functions from Windows to 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 ISS regarding why they chose to switch from Windows to Linux on the ISS 87 88 In 2017 the 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 89 In 2020 the European Commission adopted its Open Source Strategy 2020 2023 90 including encouraging sharing and reuse of software and publishing Commission s source code as key objectives Among concrete actions there is also to set up an Open Source Programme Office in 2020 91 and in 2022 it launched its own FOSS repository https code europa eu 92 In 2021 the Commission Decision on the open source licensing and reuse of Commissionsoftware 2021 C 495 I 01 93 was adopted under which as a general principle the European Commission may release software under EUPL or another FOSS license if more appropriate There are exceptions though In May 2022 94 the Expert group on the Interoperability of European Public Services came published 27 recommendations to strengthen the interoperability of public administrations across the EU These recommendations are to be taken into account later in the same year in Commission s proposal of the Interoperable Europe Act Production EditSee also Open source software development This section should include a summary of or be summarized in another article See Wikipedia Summary style for information on how to incorporate it into this article s main text or the main text of another article July 2017 Issues and incidents EditGPLv3 controversy Edit This section provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject Please help improve the article by providing more context for the reader 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 Act DMCA the Free Software Foundation released version 3 of its GNU Public License GNU GPLv3 in 2007 that explicitly addressed the DMCA and patent rights After the development of the GNU GPLv3 in 2007 the FSF as the 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 95 several projects decided against upgrading For instance the Linux kernel 96 97 the BusyBox 98 99 project AdvFS 100 Blender 101 and the VLC media player decided against adopting the GPLv3 102 Apple a user of GCC and a heavy user of both DRM and patents switched the compiler in its Xcode IDE from GCC to Clang which is another FOSS compiler 103 but is under a permissive license 104 LWN speculated that Apple was motivated partly by a desire to avoid GPLv3 103 The Samba project also switched to GPLv3 so Apple replaced Samba in their software suite by a closed source proprietary software alternative 105 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 already popular open source applications and desktop environments create new mostly redundant software to gain fame and fortune 106 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 Linux on notebooks such as the unnecessary power consumption 106 Commercial ownership of open source software Edit Mergers have affected major open source software Sun Microsystems Sun acquired MySQL AB owner of the popular open source MySQL database in 2008 107 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 database have raised concerns in the FOSS community 108 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 109 All of these have distinct names they are distinct projects and cannot use the trademarked name MySQL 110 Legal cases Edit Oracle v Google Edit Main article Google LLC v Oracle America Inc In August 2010 Oracle sued Google claiming that its use of Java in Android infringed on Oracle s copyrights and patents In May 2012 the trial judge determined that Google did not infringe on Oracle s patents and ruled that the structure of the Java APIs used by Google was not copyrightable The jury found that Google infringed a small number of copied files but the parties stipulated that Google would pay no damages 111 Oracle appealed to the Federal Circuit and Google filed a cross appeal on the literal copying claim 112 As part driver of a new socio economic model EditMain article Open source model See also Commons based peer production Open content 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 FOSS movement counters neoliberalism and privatization in general 113 114 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 114 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 115 See also Edit Free and open source software portalFLOSS Manuals FLOSS Weekly Free software community Free software license Graphics hardware and FOSS List of free and open source software packages List of formerly proprietary software Open source license Outline of free softwareNotes 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 philosophical backgrounds 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 a b c What is free software The Free Software Definition The GNU Project GNU org 2018 06 12 Archived from the original on 2013 10 14 Retrieved 2018 09 15 Hatlestad 2005 Claburn 2007 Stallman Richard FLOSS and FOSS The GNU Project GNU org Archived from the original on 2018 09 16 Retrieved 2018 09 15 Stallman Richard FLOSS and FOSS www gnu org Archived from the original on 2018 09 16 Retrieved 2018 09 15 GNU org 20 September 2011 Archived from the original on 14 October 2013 Retrieved 23 October 2011 Maracke Catharina 2019 02 25 Free and Open Source Software and FRAND based patent licenses How to mediate between Standard Essential Patent and Free and Open Source Software The Journal of World Intellectual Property 22 3 4 78 102 doi 10 1111 jwip 12114 ISSN 1422 2213 S2CID 159111696 GNU s Bulletin Volume 1 Number 1 page 8 GNU org Archived from the original on 2015 06 23 Retrieved 2015 06 20 The Free Software Definition Translations of this page GNU org Archived from the original on 2013 10 14 Retrieved 2014 04 18 a b Free Software Foundation 27 December 2016 What is free software The Free Software Definition The GNU Project GNU org Archived from the original on 14 October 2013 Retrieved 15 September 2018 The Open Source Definition by Bruce Perens 1999 03 29 Archived from the original on 2014 09 15 Retrieved 2016 01 20 Open Sources Voices from the Open Source Revolution January 1999 ISBN 1 56592 582 3 The Open Source Definition Archived from the original on 2013 10 15 Retrieved 2015 06 20 The Open Source Definition according to the Open Source Initiative Slashdot org News slashdot org 16 February 2009 Archived from the original on 17 July 2013 Retrieved 23 October 2011 It s Time to Talk About Free Software Again Archived from the original on 2014 07 16 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 Archived from the original on November 6 2013 Retrieved February 18 2017 Shea Tom 1983 06 23 Free software Free software is a junkyard of software spare parts InfoWorld Archived from the original on 2021 04 28 Retrieved 2016 02 10 Corbly James Edward 2014 09 25 The Free Software Alternative Freeware Open Source Software and Libraries Information Technology and Libraries 33 3 65 doi 10 6017 ital v33i3 5105 ISSN 2163 5226 Archived from the original on 2021 05 01 Retrieved 2021 04 28 Gates Bill February 3 1976 An Open Letter to Hobbyists archived from the original on April 16 2018 retrieved September 17 2017 Fisher McKie amp Mancke 1983 Computer Software 1980 Copyright Act Pub L No 96 517 94 Stat 3015 3028 Archived 2013 03 30 at the Wayback Machine Copyright Basics www lib purdue edu Archived from the original on 2015 06 30 Retrieved 2015 04 01 Weber 2009 Object code only is IBM playing fair Archived 2021 04 29 at the Wayback Machine IBM s OCO policy protects its own assets but may threaten customers investment on Computerworld 8 Febr 1988 Firm sidestep IBM policy by banning software changes Archived 2021 08 18 at the Wayback Machine on Computerworld 18 March 1985 Gallant John 1985 03 18 IBM policy draws fire Users say source code rules hamper change Computerworld Archived from the original on 2021 08 18 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 kernel 0 12 Kernel org Archived from the original on 2007 08 19 Retrieved 2016 07 25 History of the OSI Opensource org Archived from the original on 2012 07 26 Retrieved 2014 02 02 Charny 2001 Miller Voas amp Costello 2010 pp 14 16 Kirk St Amant 2007 Handbook of 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 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 and the Law Empirical Approaches to Legal Aspects of Knowledge Economy Business Models Springer Science amp Business Media ISBN 9789067048453 Archived from the original on 30 December 2019 Retrieved 4 July 2017 What is free software www gnu org Archived from the original on 3 July 2017 Retrieved 4 July 2017 a b c d e f g 10 Reasons Open Source Is Good for Business PCWorld 2010 11 05 Archived from the original on 22 June 2017 Retrieved 4 July 2017 Microsoft Back Doors www gnu org Archived from the original on 28 June 2017 Retrieved 4 July 2017 Microsoft Accidentally Leaks Key to Windows Backdoor Schneier on Security www schneier com Archived from the original on 25 August 2017 Retrieved 4 July 2017 Thomson Iain Snowden leak Microsoft added Outlook com backdoor for Feds The Register Archived from the original on 25 August 2017 Retrieved 4 July 2017 Strandburg Katherine J Raicu Daniela Stan 2005 Privacy and Technologies of Identity A Cross Disciplinary Conversation Springer Science amp Business Media ISBN 9780387260501 Retrieved 4 July 2017 a b c Is Open Source Software More Secure PDF Archived PDF from the original on 24 July 2017 Retrieved 4 July 2017 a b Open source software is more secure than you think SC Media US 8 October 2013 Archived from the original on 25 August 2017 Retrieved 12 July 2017 a b Too Big to Fail Open Source Software Needs Hacker Help Observer 4 November 2016 Archived from the original on 22 July 2017 Retrieved 12 July 2017 Fogel Karl 2005 Producing Open Source Software How to Run a Successful Free Software Project O Reilly Media Inc ISBN 9780596552992 Retrieved 4 July 2017 Sery Paul G 2007 Ubuntu Linux For Dummies John Wiley amp Sons ISBN 9780470125052 Retrieved 4 July 2017 Linux Today KERNEL DEV UDI and Free Software by Richard Stallman www linuxtoday com Archived from the original on 25 August 2017 Retrieved 4 July 2017 Vaughan Nichols Steven J Microsoft tries to block Linux off Windows 8 PCs ZDNet ZDNet Archived from the original on 14 July 2017 Retrieved 12 July 2017 Kingsley Hughes Adrian Lenovo reportedly blocking Linux on Windows 10 Signature Edition PCs updated ZDNet ZDNet Archived from the original on 14 July 2017 Retrieved 12 July 2017 Linux Today How Microsoft Changes the Prices at OEMs to Block GNU Linux Sales www linuxtoday com Archived from the original on 25 August 2017 Retrieved 12 July 2017 Microsoft killed Dell Linux States The Register Archived from the original on 17 July 2017 Retrieved 12 July 2017 Hill Benjamin Mako When Free Software Isn t Practically Superior Archived from the original on 13 July 2017 Retrieved 11 July 2017 DVD FLLC 2009 How To Obtain DVD Format Logo License 2005 2009 Arthur Tatnall 2007 Encyclopedia of Portal Technologies and Applications Idea Group Inc IGI ISBN 9781591409908 Retrieved 11 July 2017 Baldauf Kenneth Stair Ralph 2008 Succeeding with Technology Cengage Learning ISBN 978 1423925293 Retrieved 12 July 2017 Mastering Information Technology for CXC CSEC CAPE Dennis Adonis Retrieved 12 July 2017 Casson amp Ryan 2006 News Ecuador Ahead of the World with Democracy of Knowledge Archived from the original on 2014 12 18 a href Template Cite web html title Template Cite web cite web a CS1 maint unfit URL link in Spanish Estebanmendieta com Archived 2014 06 28 at the Wayback Machine Decree 1014 Paul 2009 1 Archived 2017 08 27 at the Wayback Machine PM Bulletin Circular letter 5608 SG of September 19th 2012 2 Archived 2018 09 10 at the Wayback Machine Use of the open source software in the administration 3 Archived 2017 08 27 at the Wayback Machine Interministerial base of open source applications Landeshauptstadt Munchen Aktuelle Zahlen in German Muenchen de Archived from the original on 2014 08 27 Retrieved 2014 07 28 Munich council To hell with Linux we re going full Windows in 2020 Archived from the original on 2017 12 01 Retrieved 2017 12 04 Linux not Windows Why Munich is shifting back from Microsoft to open source again Archived from the original on 2021 04 09 Retrieved 2021 04 17 Riordan Ciaran O 2022 09 20 Germany launches opencode de Joinup joinup ec europa eu Retrieved 2022 10 24 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 PDF from the original on 2013 11 03 Retrieved 2014 02 02 Kerala IT Welcome www keralait org Archived from the original on 2019 10 26 Retrieved 2019 09 18 Alawadhi 2015 Policy on Adoption of Open Source Software for Government of India PDF Archived PDF from the original on 2015 08 15 Italian military to switch to Joinup joinup ec europa eu 15 September 2015 Archived from the original on 2019 09 21 Retrieved 2019 09 18 Un anno di LibreDifesa LibreItalia in Italian 23 June 2016 Archived from the original on 9 October 2017 Retrieved 10 May 2018 Difel LibreDifesa el stelmilit difesa it Archived from the original on 2017 10 09 Retrieved 2017 10 09 Jordan Information Ministry signs deal on open source Government News amp Features ITP net Archived from the original on 2012 08 04 Retrieved 2012 04 23 OSCC org Archived from the original on 2011 10 27 Retrieved 23 October 2011 OSCC org Archived from the original on 2011 10 05 Retrieved 23 October 2011 Clarke 2005 National Advisory Council on Innovation Open Software Working Group July 2004 Free Libre amp Open Source Software and Open Standards in South Africa PDF Archived from the original PDF on December 22 2014 Retrieved 31 May 2008 Open Source Strategy amp Policy Archived from the original on September 27 2014 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 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 PDF from the original on 21 January 2017 Retrieved 2016 09 14 Also available as HTML at sourcecode wbr cio wbr gov New William 22 August 2016 New US Government Source Code Policy Could Provide Model For Europe Intellectual Property Watch Geneva Switzerland Archived from the original on 28 August 2016 Retrieved 2016 09 14 Venezuela Open Source Archived from the original on February 16 2008 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 amp services on competitiveness and innovation ISBN 978 92 79 66177 8 Archived from the original on 2017 05 06 Retrieved 2017 03 27 Open source software strategy European Commission European Commission Retrieved 2022 10 24 EC Open Source Programme Office Joinup joinup ec europa eu Retrieved 2022 10 24 Riordan Ciaran O 2022 09 19 EC s code europa eu launches Joinup joinup ec europa eu Retrieved 2022 10 24 COMMISSION DECISION of 8 December 2021 on the open source licensing and reuse of Commission software 2021 C 495 I 01 Official Journal of the European Union 2021 12 08 GAUKEMA Laurens 2022 05 13 Official expert recommendations for a new Interoperability Policy Joinup joinup ec europa eu Retrieved 2022 10 24 Mark 2008 05 08 The Curse of Open Source License Proliferation socializedsoftware com Archived from the original on 2015 12 08 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 Archived from the original on 17 December 2015 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 Archived from the original on 2015 02 12 Retrieved 2015 02 12 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 corbet 2006 10 01 Busy busy busybox lwn net Archived from the original on 2016 01 07 Retrieved 2015 11 21 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 Landley Rob 2006 09 09 Re Move GPLv2 vs v3 fun lwn net Archived from the original on 2016 01 07 Retrieved 2015 11 21 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 HP Press Release HP Contributes Source Code to Open Source Community to Advance Adoption of Linux www hp com Archived from the original on 2011 12 27 Retrieved 2016 01 14 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 Remi VLC media player to remain under GNU GPL version 2 videolan org Archived from the original on 2015 11 22 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 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 a b Brockmeier 2010 LLVM Developer Policy LLVM Archived from the original on November 13 2012 Retrieved November 19 2012 Holwerda 2011 a b Leemhuis Thorsten Kommentar Linux scheitert an Egozentrik in German heise online Archived from the original on 7 July 2017 Retrieved 12 July 2017 Sun to Acquire 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 Berry David M 2008 Copy Rip Burn The Politics of Copyleft and Open Source 1 ed London Pluto Press p 272 ISBN 978 0745324142 Archived from the original on 2021 07 09 Retrieved 2021 03 25 a b Georgopoulou Panayiota 2009 The free open source software movement Resistance or change Civitas Revista de Ciencias Sociais 9 1 doi 10 15448 1984 7289 2009 1 5569 ISSN 1519 6089 Archived from the original on 13 July 2017 Retrieved 11 July 2017 Benkler 2003 Sources Edit Alawadhi Neha March 30 2015 Government announces policy on open source software The Times of India Archived from the original on 2016 01 10 Retrieved 2015 06 27 Benkler Yochai April 2003 Freedom in the Commons Towards a Political Economy of Information Duke Law Journal 52 6 Archived from the original on 2011 03 06 Retrieved 2014 01 08 Bridgewater Adrian May 13 2013 International Space Station adopts Debian Linux drops Windows amp Red Hat into airlock Computer Weekly Archived from the original on 2015 06 24 Retrieved 2015 06 27 Brockmeier Joe September 15 2010 Apple s Selective Contributions to GCC LWN net Archived from the original on 2020 01 01 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 ed Standards Edge Unifier or Divider Sheridan Books p 87 ISBN 978 0974864853 SSRN 1656616 Charny B May 3 2001 Microsoft Raps Open Source Approach CNET News Archived from the original on July 29 2012 Retrieved February 15 2022 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 Archived from the original on 2011 11 09 Retrieved 2015 06 27 ElBoghdady Dina Tsukayama Hayley September 29 2011 Facebook tracking prompts calls for FTC investigation The Washington Post Archived from the original on 2015 06 30 Retrieved 2015 06 27 Feller Joseph ed 2005 Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software MIT Press ISBN 978 0262062466 Fisher Franklin M McKie James W Mancke Richard B 1983 IBM and the U S Data Processing Industry An Economic History Praeger ISBN 978 0 03 063059 0 Gunter Joel May 10 2013 International Space Station to boldly go with Linux over Windows The Telegraph Archived from the original on 2022 01 11 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 Archived from the original on 2012 01 14 Retrieved 2015 06 22 Jones Pamela October 5 2012 Oracle and Google File Appeals Groklaw Archived from the original on 2012 12 01 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 S2CID 24463978 Nelson Russell December 13 2009 Open Source MySQL and trademarks Opensource org Open Source Initiative Archived from the original on 2011 10 21 Retrieved 2015 06 22 Niccolai James June 20 2012 Oracle agrees to zero damages in Google lawsuit eyes appeal Computerworld Archived from the original on 2012 11 17 Retrieved 2015 06 22 Paul Ryan March 11 2009 French police we saved millions of euros by adopting Ubuntu Ars Technica Archived from the original on 2009 03 13 Retrieved 2015 06 27 Perens Bruce 1999 The Open Source Definition Open Sources Voices from the Open Source Revolution O Reilly Media ISBN 978 1 56592 582 3 Samson Ted March 17 2011 Non Oracle MySQL fork deemed ready for prime time InfoWorld Archived from the original on 2015 06 23 Retrieved 2015 06 22 Stallman Richard n d Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software GNU org Free Software Foundation Archived from the original on 2011 08 04 Retrieved 2015 06 27 Thomson Iain September 16 2011 Oracle offers commercial extensions to MySQL The Register Archived from the original on 2019 10 26 Retrieved 2015 06 22 Vaughan Nichols Steven J October 29 2009 Obama Invites Open Source into the White House PCWorld Archived from the original on 2009 10 31 Retrieved 2015 06 27 Vaughan Nichols Steven January 8 2011 No GPL Apps for Apple s App Store ZDNet Archived from the original on 2014 11 15 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 EditBarr Joe 1998 Why Free Software is better than Open Source Free Software Foundation Archived from the original on 2007 07 03 Retrieved 2007 11 25 Berry David 2008 Copy Rip Burn The Politics of Copyleft and Open Source 1 ed London Pluto Press p 272 ISBN 978 0745324142 Archived from the original on 2021 07 09 Retrieved 2021 03 25 Salus Peter H March 28 2005 A History of Free and Open Source Groklaw Archived from the original on 2015 09 24 Retrieved 2015 06 22 Vetter G 2009 Commercial Free and Open Source Software Knowledge Production Hybrid Appropriability and Patents Fordham Law Review 77 5 2087 2141 Archived from the original on 2012 04 24 Retrieved 2011 10 23 Wheeler David A May 8 2014 Why Open Source Software Free Software OSS FS FLOSS or FOSS Look at the Numbers DWheeler com Archived from the original on 2015 06 21 Retrieved 2015 06 22 External links Edit Wikibooks has a book on the topic of FLOSS Concept Booklet Wikibooks has a book on the topic of FOSS A General Introduction Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Free and open source software amp oldid 1128430257, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.