Open Source - meaning of word
Rozmiar: 8938 bajtów


Open Source



#REDIRECT Open source

Open Source



#REDIRECT Open source

Open source



Open source denotes that the origins of a product are publicly accessible in part or in whole. This article focuses on open source as a common allusion to any open-source software (OSS) where its source code, its related documentation and its content in general acquired such open-source basis. Open-source software has freely available source code, which lets anybody create a new version of the software. Such access to the source code allows anybody to build a package of the software and sell it. Some people have used the term ''open source'' in reference to any software that has publicly available source code, but not all publicly available source code meets open source standards. The Open Source Definition (OSD), notably, presents an open-source philosophy, and further defines a boundary on the usage, modification and redistribution of open-source software. #Software licenses define specific grants or restrictions on usage, modification and redistribution, and several open-source license have qualified within the boundary of the OSD, like the popular GNU General Public License (GPL). ==Root terminology== The "open source" label came out of a strategy session held in Palo Alto, California in reaction to Netscape Communications Corporation's January 1998 announcement of a source code release for Netscape Navigator (as Mozilla). A group of individuals at the session included Todd Anderson, Christine Peterson, John Hall and Larry Augustin, Sam Ockman and Eric S. Raymond. They used the opportunity before the release of Navigator's source code to express a confusion caused by the word 'free.' Right after the strategy session, the 'open source' movement most notably begun. Many people, nevertheless, claimed that the birth of the Internet, since 1969, provided the revolution for open source. The Free Software Foundation (FSF), started in 1985, intended the word 'free' to mean "free as in free speech" and not "free as in free beer." Since a great deal of free software already was (and still is) free of charge, such free software became associated with zero cost, which seemed anti-commercial. The Open Source Initiative (OSI) formed in Feburary 1998 by Eric S. Raymond and Bruce Perens. With at least 20 years of evidence from pragmatic cases in closed development versus open development already provided by the Internet, the OSI presented the 'open source' case to commercial businesses, like Netscape. OSI hoped that the usage of the label "open source," a term suggested by Peterson of the Foresight Institute at the strategy session, would eliminate ambiguity, particularly for individuals who perceive "free software" as anti-commercial. They sought to bring a higher profile to the practical benefits of freely available source code, and they wanted to bring major software businesses and other high-tech industries into open source. Perens attempted to register "open source" as a service mark for OSI, but that attempt was impractical by trademark standards. Meanwhile, Raymond encouraged Netscape to adopt the "open source" label. Netscape released its Navigator source code as open source, favorably. Years later, the OSI finally obtained the trademark on "OSI Certified." Critics said that the term "open source" fosters an ambiguity of a different kind such that it confuses the mere availability of the source with the freedom to use, modify, and redistribute it. Developers have used the term Free Open-Source Software (FOSS), consequently, to describe open-source software that is freely available and free of charge. ==Open source model== In his 1997 essay The Cathedral and the Bazaar [RAY2000], Eric Raymond suggests a model for developing OSS known as the Bazaar model. Raymond likens the development of software by traditional methodologies to building a cathedral, "''fully crafted by individual wizards or small bands of mages working in splendid isolation''" [RAY2000]. He suggests that all software should be developed using the bazaar style, which he described as "''a great babbling bazaar of differing agendas and approaches''." In the Cathedral, model development takes place in a centralized way. Roles are clearly defined. Roles include people dedicated to designing (the architects), people responsible for managing the project, and people responsible for implementation. Traditional software engineering follows the Cathedral model. F.P. Brooks in his book ''The Mythical Man-Month'' advocates this sort of model. He goes further to say that in order to preserve the architectural integrity of a system, the system design should be done by as few architects as possible. The Bazaar model, however, is different. In the Bazaar model, roles are not clearly defined. Gregorio Robles [ROB2004] suggests that software developed using the Bazaar model should exhibit the following patterns: *''Users should be treated as co-developers.'' The users are treated like co-developers and so they should have access to the source code of the software. Furthermore users are encouraged to submit additions to the software, code fixes for the software, bug reports, documentation etc. Having more co-developers increases the rate at which the software evolves. Linus’ law states that, "Given enough eyeballs all bugs are shallow." This means that if many users view the source code they will eventually find all bugs and suggest how to fix them. Note that some users have advanced programming skills, and furthermore, each user's machine provides an additional testing environment. This new testing environment offers that ability to find and fix a new bug. *''Early Releases.'' The first version of the software should be released as early as possible so as to increase one's chances of finding co-developers early. *''Frequent Integration.'' New code should be integrated as often as possible so as to avoid the overhead of fixing a large number of bugs at the end of the project life cycle. Some Open Source projects have nightly builds where integration is done automatically on a daily basis. *''Several Versions.'' There should be at least two versions of the software. There should be a buggier version with more features and a more stable version with fewer bugs. The buggy version (also called the development version) is for users who want the advantage of having the latest features. The users can then act as co-developers, reporting bugs and providing bug fixes. The stable version offers the users less bugs or less features. *''High Modularization.'' The general structure of the software should be modular allowing for parallel development. *''Dynamic decision making structure.'' There is a need for a decision making structure, whether formal or informal, that makes strategic decisions depending on changing user requirements and other factors. Most well-known OSS products follow the Bazaar model as suggested by Eric Raymond. These include projects such as Linux, Netscape, Apache HTTP Server, the GNU Compiler Collection, and Perl to mention a few. SourceForge, which maintains that it is the largest repository of Open Source code and applications available on the Internet and had 87,554 Open Source projects as of writing. These projects are all undertaken based on the Bazaar model. *[RAY2000] Raymond E.S. (11 September 2000). "The Cathedral and the Bazaar". Retrieved 19 September 2004 from http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/index.html *[ROB2004] Robles G. (2004). "A Software Engineering approach to Libre Software". Retrieved 20 April 2005 from http://www.opensourcejahrbuch.de/2004/pdfs/III-3-Robles.pdf ==Open-source license== Open-source licenses define the privileges and restrictions a licensor must follow in order to use, modify or redistribute the open source software. Open source software includes software with source code in the public domain and software distributed under an open-source license. Examples of open source licenses include BSD license, GNU General Public License, GNU Lesser General Public License, MIT License, Apache License and Mozilla Public License. ==Open source movement== The open source movement is a large movement of programmers and other computer users that advocates unrestricted access to the source code of software. It grew out of licenses such as BSD, the ubiquitous access to Unix source code at universities. The line between the open source movement and the free software movement is somewhat blurry. Both are founded in the hacker culture. Mostly, the Free software movement is based upon political and philosophical ideals, while open source proponents tend to focus on more pragmatic arguments. Openness is a term that has evolved now to refer to projects that are open to anyone and everyone to contribute to, before and/or after the actual programming. Both groups assert that this more open style of licensing allows for a superior software development process (when compared to closed source), and therefore that pursuing it is in line with rational self-interest. Free software advocates, however, would argue that "freedom" is a paramount merit that one should prefer (or at least weigh heavily) even in cases where proprietary software has some superior technical features. Proponents of the open source development methodology claim that it is superior in a number of ways to the closed source method. Some individuals suggest that the open source methodology is able to produce higher quality software than any other methodology or technique. Stability, reliability, and security are frequently cited as reasons to support open source. One successful application of the open source model is the Linux operating system, which is renowned for its stability and security characteristics. Among the works that explore and justify open source development is a series of works by Eric S. Raymond which includes The Cathedral and the Bazaar and Homesteading the Noosphere. Open source advocates point out that as of the early 2000s, at least 90 percent of computer programmers are employed not to produce software for direct sale, but rather to design and customize software for other purposes, such as in-house applications. According to advocates, this statistic implies that the value of software lies primarily in its usefulness to the developer or developing organization, rather than in its potential sale value -- consequently, there is usually no compelling economic reason to keep source code secret from competitors. Open-source advocates further argue that corporations frequently over-protect software in ways actually damaging to their own interests, for reasons ranging from mere institutional habit through reflexive territoriality to a rational but incorrect evaluation of the tradeoffs between collecting secrecy rent and the quality and market payoff of openness. The 2001 film ''Antitrust (movie)'' portrayed the struggle of a small-time group of open-source programmers against a large Microsoft-like closed-source corporation. Open source is a term that is applied to the entire concept that the creation and organization of knowledge is best created through open and cooperative efforts—this movement, variously called "open content" or "free culture," has been expressly endorsed by advocates of OSS, including Linus Torvalds who said "The future is 'open source everything.'" ==Open source vs. closed source== The open source vs. closed source (alternatively called proprietary development) debate is sometimes heated. Making money through traditional methods, such as sale of the use of individual copies and patent royality payment, is more difficult and sometimes impractical with open-source software. Some closed-source adcovates see open source software as damaging to the market of commercial software. This complaint is countered by a large number of alternative funding streams such as: *giving the software for free and instead charge for installation and support (used by many Linux distributions) *make the software availible as open-source so that people will be more likely to purchase a related product or service you do sell (e.g. Openoffice.org vs StarOffice) *cost avoidance / cost sharing: many developers need a product, so it makes sense to share development costs (this is the genesis of the X Window System and the Apache web server) Studies about security in open-source software versus closed-source software show that closed-source software have fewer advisories but open-source software usually has less time between flaw discovery and a patch or fix. Advocates of closed source argue that since no one is responsible for open-source software, there is no way to know whether it has been fixed. Open-source advocates argue that since the source code of closed-source software is not available, there is no way to know what bugs that may exist. ==Open source vs. free software== Even though open source software and free software on a practical level often share the same licenses, there is a philosophical difference in emphasis. The free software movement emphasizes the moral and ethical aspects of software, seeing technical excellence as a desirable by-product of its ethical standard. The open source movement emphasizes technical excellence, with regards to source code sharing. ==Participants in OSS development projects== The participants of an OSS project fall broadly into two categories. There are the Core and the Peripheral. The Core or Inner Circle are developers who modify codes that constitute the project. The Peripheral are usually made up of users who use the software. They report bugs, and suggest fixes. The participants may then be further divided into the following. #Project leaders who have the overall responsibility (Core). Most of them might have been involved in coding the first release of the software. They control the overall direction of individual projects. #Volunteer developers (Core / Periphery) who do actual coding for the project. These include: #*Senior members with broader overall authority #*Peripheral developers producing and submitting code fixes #*Occasional contributors #*Maintainers who maintain different aspects of the project #Everyday users who perform testing, identify bugs, deliver bug reports, etc. (Periphery) #Posters (Periphery) who participate frequently in newsgroups and discussions, but do not do any coding. ==Open source software development tools== There are several types of tools used to aid the activities performed in Open Source Software projects. These tools include the following; ===Source code revision control=== In OSS development the participants, who are mostly volunteers, are distributed amongst different geographic regions so there is need for tools to aid participants to collaborate in the development of source code. Concurrent Versions System (CVS) is a major example of a source code collaboration tool being used in OSS projects. CVS helps manage the files and codes of a project when several people are working on the project as the same time. CVS can allow several people to work on the same file at the same time. This is done by moving the file into the users’ directories and then merging the files when the users are done. CVS also enables one to easily go back to a previous version of a file and retrieve it. ===Testing tools=== Since OSS projects undergo frequent integration, tools that help automate testing during system integration are used. One such tool is Tinderbox (software). Tinderbox enables participants in an OSS project to detect errors during system integration. Tinderbox runs a continuous build process and informs users about the parts of codes that have issues and on which platform. It also identifies the author of the offending code. The author is then held responsible for ensuring that error is resolved. ===Bug/Error/Defect tracking tools=== Bug tracking is a very important aspect of OSS projects. Bug tracking includes the following tasks. It involves keeping a record of all reported bugs, whether the bug has been fixed or not, which version of the software does the bug belong to, and whether the bug submitter has agreed that the bug has been fixed (squashed). Popular bug tracking systems include Bugzilla and GNATS. GNU GNATS is a set of tools for tracking bugs reported by users to a central site. It allows problem report management and communication with users via various means. GNATS stores all the information about problem reports in its databases and provides tools for querying, editing, and maintenance of the databases. Bugzilla is a "Defect Tracking System" or "Bug-Tracking System". It allows individual or groups of developers to keep track and manage outstanding bugs in their product effectively. ===Communication=== Since the participants in an OSS development project are dispersed, there is a need for tools to aid in organizing communication between project participants. This is accomplished with the aid of websites (SourceForge, freshmeat), mailing lists (GNU Mailman) and instant messengers. The above mentioned Open Source Software development tools are an essential and integral part of the Open Source Software development model. ==Influence on other fields== The open source movement has been the inspiration for increased transparency (humanities) and liberty in other fields. For example the release of biotechnology research by CAMBIA, and the Wikipedia that you are reading right now. The open-source concept has also been applied to media other than computer programs, e.g., by Creative Commons. ==Advocates== Leading open source advocates include Bruce Perens, Eric Raymond, Linus Torvalds, Eben Moglen, Paul Vixie, Alan Cox, Tim O'Reilly and Brian Behlendorf. Richard Stallman is a central figure in the similar free software movement, which has a different philosophical basis. Stallman does not want his name associated with the term ''open source''. Leading open source critics include Bill Gates, amongst others. ==Prominent projects and organizations== *Apache Software Foundation, Debian, FreeBSD, Mozilla Foundation, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Linux, OpenOffice.org, Open Source Initiative, SourceForge, GNU, Open Source Development Labs ==Examples of open source software== For an extensive list of examples of open-source software, see the List of open-source software packages. ==See also== ===Related topics=== *Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman's Crusade for Free Software *Free culture *Free/Libre Open Source Software *Gift economy *GNU Savannah *Halloween documents *Open content for non-programming open source projects *Open Design — the application of open source principles to creating material objects and solutions. *Open hardware / Open source hardware *Openness — the philosophical term *Open source culture *Open source ethics *Open source funding *Open source politics ===Contrast with=== ;Software license models *Freeware *Shareware *Proprietary software ;Publication and information access models *Open access *Open publishing ==Further reading== *Mikko Välimäki, ''The Rise of Open Source Licensing: A Challenge to the Use of Intellectual Property in the Software Industry'', Turre Publishing (2005) [http://pub.turre.com/ download PDF file (free) or order hard copy from publisher] ==External links== *[http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/anarchism.html Anarchism Triumphant: Free Software and the Death of Copyright] — Eben Moglen, Professor of Law and History at Columbia University *[http://www.openknowledge.org/writing/open-source/scb/brief-open-source-history.html Brief History of the Open Source Movement] * "the" [http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php definition of open source] *[http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/dcm.html The dotCommunist Manifesto] — Eben Moglen *[http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html Goodbye, "free software"; hello, "open source"] — Raymond's announcement of the term "open source", 8 February 1998 *[http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Open_Source/ Open Source] in the Open Directory Project *[http://www.opensource.org/index.php Open Source Initiative (OSI)] — a list of available licenses *[http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/toc.html Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution] — an online book containing essays from prominent members of the open source community *[http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html Why "Free Software" is better than "Open Source"] — a later essay from Free Software Foundation Software Digital Revolution Free software kn:ಮುಕ್ತ ತ೦ತ್ರಾ೦ಶ ms:Kandungan terbuka simple:Open source th:โอเพนซอร์ส

Open source



The article states: "Such a license may require that the source code be distributed along with the software". I don't think that this is true. GPL-licensed software is often distributed as a RPM file where one can't see the source code, but the source code is _readily available_. I believe the article should say "Such a license may require that the source code be readily available to the end-user". I realize that the statement says MAY, but we should go with how the GPL licenses software, as this is the most popular license, and it's the license that the article was focusing on. Sorry if I was wrong in the first place :P -User:Frazzydee 15:30, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC) ----- I'm not convinced that :Donald Knuth is a good example of a :open source proponent. While he released the source to :TeX, which is certainly admirable, he did so under a license that barely makes the [http://opensource.org/docs/definition_plain.html Open Source Definition]: changes are only allowed through the cumbersome use of "change files". I'm not deleting him outright, because there may be something I missed. :I believe you have the licenses for :LaTeX mixed up with :TeX. There is nothing shady about TeX's license, AFAIK. Also, Knuth has been a generous donor to the :Free Software Foundation for many years -- User:CYD The people section seems generally a bit unclear: is the intention to list vocal proponents of the movement (Perens, Raymond) or maintainers of influental open source software (Torvalds, Vixie). As mentioned above, I don't think Knuth is a prime example of the latter, either. ----- Um. I dont consider the lines between the Free Software movement and the Open Source philospohy to be "blury" at all. Free Software is about personal freedoms: the users freedom to copy, distribute and modify the software they use. Open Source is about the way to make the technically best software. Also, the list of "Open Source" projects is dodgy - try telling RMS that his Emacs is "Open Source" software! -- User:Asa ----- Personally, whether right or wrong, I find the dogmatic polarization being done between "open" and "free" to be distasteful. It smells muchly of :FUD. ----- Ths distinction between Open Source and Free Software has absolutely nothing to do with software, if it in fact exists. Observe that the Open Source definition is a rebranding of the Debian Free Software Guidelines. I think many Open Source advocates just have different ideas about how to "sell" the idea that giving away software is a Good Thing. -- User:SamB ----- What is this sentence about "Remember section 5.2"? It smells strongly of a quote from Lessig, but there are no quotation marks. :Looks like it's ripped directly from section 5.6 of [http://akira.arts.kuleuven.ac.be/andreas/english_paper_gaidai.html this document]. It's linked at the end of the paragraph, but it definitely needs some working into the context of the article. Is this plagiarism, or is it used with permission? Maybe it should be deleted altogether... -- User:Wapcaplet :Actually, looking at it more closely, these two paragraphs (beginning with "When talking about source code...") are both taken from the article linked above, and have been here for a while. I'd definitely vote to either rephrase or remove them. -- User:Wapcaplet ---- I'm not too clear on the reason for linking to the [http://www.dmoz.com/ Open Directory Project]. Sure, it's open, but it's not source code. -- User:Wapcaplet == how to use hyphens == As I have said on various occasions, anyone who doubts the utility of the marvelously efficient information-conveying power of the humble punctuation mark known as the hyphen, when it is used in its traditional way, should consider the difference in meaning between two newspaper headlines: :New age-discrimination rules proposed :New-age discrimination rules proposed or: :The disease causing poor nutrition was identified. (which means the disease that causes poor nutrition...) versus: :The disease-causing poor nutrition was identified. (which means the disease that is caused by poor nutrition). A web site asked Who are the best-connected physicists?, but omitted the hyphen, and I wondered for a second what exactly a "connected physicist" is, that being apparently prior to the question of which of those are the best. Similarly: :text-only :Detroit-based organization :web-based :a state-of-the-art product :board-certified :thought-provoking :time-sensitive :case-sensitive :government-issued photo ID :light-gathering surface :award-winning etc. Accordingly, I think this page should be about Open-Source software rather than Open Source software. The topic is hereby opened for public discussion before I undertake any editing. User:131.183.81.100 22:18 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC) ---- I agree in general with hyphenating compound adjectives, although with proper nouns (''Open Source Definition'') I think one should stick with the original hyphenation. Otherwise, though, I agree that it is "open-source software" (and "free software", but "free-software community") etcetera. ---- This isn't so hard. Eric Raymond wrote on http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html: : (A note about usage. In accordance with normal English practice, the term is "open source" standing alone, but "open-source" used as an adjective or in compounds; thus, "open-source software".) I suggest we follow that guideline, but you have to be careful since it often looks like an adjective, but isn't: Open Source Definition, Open Source Initiative -- both lack a hyphen. It's clearer when you think of OSD as "Definition of (Open Source)" rather than the incorrect "Definition that is open-source". In other words, you use "open-source" when it is a property (adjective) and "Open Source" when referring to the object or the thing (noun). So, to be clear Open Source Definition and similar are not exceptions or "the original" at all. They are grammatically correct. I wrote a bit more about this on Talk:List of open source software packages, but the above is all you need to know. User:Daniel Quinlan 22:35 26 Jul 2003 (UTC) This is actually not standardized, and a matter of some debate between style manuals. In general the trend is towards less hyphenization, but of course that isn't universal. But in any case, ''open source software'' and ''open-source software'' are both correct and widely used. --User:Delirium 10:25, Oct 22, 2003 (UTC) ---- Is it understood irrespective of the hyphens? If so, we don't need to worry much. There may be a problem, however, when we suggest that our work should be hopefully open source, which is not that same as hopefully suggesting that it be open source. Since language is about as open source (or openly sourced) as any institution can be, we can probably do no better than hopefully wish for improved common practice when deploying "hopefully" as an adverb; never as an adjective. But, should we find this to be a hopeless task, we should console ourselves with the hopeful observation that the speakers are mostly understood, even hopefully understood by those who hoped for understanding while understanding, even when hopefully using "hopefully" hopelessly inadequately, and acknowledge that the situation is not quite so hopelessly impossible as a purist might have hoped for. ---- BTW, the first three paragraphs look kind of funny, shifting back and forth between "open source" and "open-source". (Just an observation from a reader.) User:Kyk 06:42, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC) : That's because it's used without the hyphen as a noun and with it as an adjective. --User:Shallot 13:51, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC) ::Well, that is why it appears that way, but I think the reason that it looks odd to me, as an American, is that that practice is not one I ever see in America. Is this a practice in Great Britain, obviously unknown to myself, perhaps? User:Kyk 21:15, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC) ::The [http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/faq.php Open Source Initiative] has a similar definition (see the question "How do I use the term "open source"). "Open source" with no hyphen is a noun, and refers to anything which has open source code; "open-source" with a hyphen is used in the adjective form. So one might say: "Open source is a good method of software development", or "Apache is open-source software." I don't think the first sentence should begin with the hyphenated form, though, since the article name itself is not hyphenated. I'll see if I can rephrase it. -- User:Wapcaplet 22:06, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC) ::Read above, the sections starting with User:131.183.81.100 22:18 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC) and ending with User:Delirium 10:25, Oct 22, 2003 (UTC). User:Brendansa 18:56, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC) ---- Meta: The stuff about hyphenation on this talk really should move to some more appropriate page -- hyphen, perhaps ? --User:DavidCary 10:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Stallman == I find that the way Richard Stallman's name is used in the current wiki "Open source" article to be confusing. There is no other discussion of his role in the main article text. And the note attached to his name in the list of those persons associated with "Open Source" says that he is actually associated with a rival concept. And then the note goes on to say that Richard prefers not to be associated with the term "open source". So why are we trying so hard to associate him with "open source" here in this Wiki article? (I tried to remove him, and someone reverted it). Maybe some more detail in the actual article about Richard Stallman's association with Open Source would make this make more sense. User:Bevo 02:40, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC) : I don't think we're trying all that hard. Let me try something in the article, let me know what you think. User:Daniel Quinlan 03:10, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC) :: I like it now a whole lot better. User:Bevo 03:22, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC) ---- The "anti-Open Source" paper [http://stlr.stanford.edu/STLR/Articles/01_STLR_4/article.htm] seems to be anti-Free Software, not anti-OSS. It's the FSF and the Free Software people who are arguing that ''all'' software should be free, not the OSI and Open Source people. So I think the link should be moved to the Free Software article, even though the author thinks he's talking about Open Source. == repositories == Would it be appropriate to add http://sourceforge.net to the list of organizations, as that is a repository of a *lot* of software that is either open source or free (and I think all free software is also open source, in which case savannah too may be listed)? User:Kyk 06:41, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC) :Sourceforge, certainly. Savannah, ''I'' would say so but the Free Software zealots would be up in arms for sullying their Holy Cause by association with the traitorous Open Source barbarians. User:Salsa Shark 06:47, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC) ::What do you think their opinion might be about my suggestion that all Free software is also Open Source -- perhaps in analogy to all Best Of All software also being Better Than Most software -- that is, do they view Open Source as a lesser quality that is included in Free? User:Kyk 06:51, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC) (PS: I enjoyed how you phrased your point.) :::Grin. I've never heard Free Software dumping on Open Source because of quality concerns; in my experience their interest in the difference is 100% politics. There's probably something on http://www.fsf.org/ that explains their exact feelings on the subject. User:Salsa Shark 07:02, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC) == NPOV tag == Should the article still be flagged for rewording concerning NPOV? User:Brendansa 18:56, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC) I see User:Raraoul agrees with me that it shouldn't. If anybody disagrees, though I don't think anybody would, please indicate why here. Also, please be specific. User:Brendansa 20:06, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) : It's pretty clear that the bias is towards open-source in the section titled 'The Open Source Debate', or at the very least, needs to be rewritten: :* "The debate over open source vs. closed source (alternatively called proprietary development) is very much a religious war." Surely the debate isn't as heated as that suggests. :* "While vast numbers of the current technology community members are proponents of open source, there are also people on the other side of the debate." Bandwagon defense: Everyone who is anyone supports position X. :* "The most obvious complaint against open source software involves the complaint that making money through some traditional methods, such as the sale of the use of individual copies and patent royalty payments, is much more difficult and sometimes impractical with open source software." The sentence suggests that those who support closed-source do so out of greed. :* "Large scale open-source projects such as Linux, FreeBSD, or Apache tend to discredit this argument." Take out the 'tend to', and this sentence is directly saying that those who support closed-source software is wrong; as is, it's an indirect attack against an opposing viewpoint. :* "First, it is no longer true that OSS is necessarily a volunteer effort; increasingly this is actually not true." This sentence doesn't actually say anything, offering no support; simply stating that one of the criticisms against open-source software is wrong. :* "In the end, an open source software program always greater flexibility to end-users, since any end user can take the program and modify it for their needs." A moot point, since most end-users do not have the ability to make significant, useful changes to a program. Surely, the author was aware of this? : At least that section needs to be updated. User:Almafeta 03:01, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC) ----- * Surely the debate isn't as heated as that suggests. This is no proof of a bias toward opensource ! * vast numbers of the current technology community members are proponents of open source It's a fact AFAIK: the most popular weblog about technology is Slashdot (which is part of the opensource network "OSTG"). At least the traffic monitoring site Alexa says so: [http://www.alexa.com/browse/general?mode=general&catid=255789 alexa.com] * The sentence suggests that those who support closed-source do so out of greed. Your interpretation * This sentence doesn't actually say anything, Sorry but it's a fact there is an increasing number of OSS projects and developpers that receive money from their users (paypal and the like) or from sponsors. * since any end user can take the program and modify it for their needs." A moot point, since most end-users do not have the ability to make significant, useful changes to a program The odds that among the users some of them happen to be also programmers are increasing as society changes and OSS gains popularity. User:Raraoul (this 2nd version of my comments adds formatting, corrections and an Alexa link) ----- I am not happy with that section of the article, either. It lacks structure and omits important arguments. For now, I only have some comments on what's been said here: * Slashdot is heavily biased in favor of Open Source and I see no reason to believe that it is the most popular website among computer scientists. There is certainly an agreement that Open Source is not all bad, but when and to what extent it is appropriate is not a call that has been made yet in the scientific community (nor, for that matter, in the Open Source community). * The lack of proven business models has been a common complaint about Open Source from the beginning and has remained a key issue to this day. Programmers want to be paid for their work -- that has nothing to do with greed and nothing in the quoted sentence suggests it does. * There is plenty of evidence that for an increasing number of key projects, most development is underwritten by corporate sponsors. But that is only true for a fraction of Open Source projects, and I agree that sources should be quoted. * If the possibility to change the code offers flexibility to some it is worth noting. And if you are lacking the ability, you can still ask or hire someone who does. That is not a moot point at all, but might be worth some explanation. User:Rl 14:42, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC) I agree with Almafeta and Rl above; the majority of this article is in need of overhaul. Here's my take on it: * The "Open Source and Free Software" section seems fairly good. But then, I may be biased, since I wrote most of it :-) * The phrase "open source" needs to be hyphenated in many places. * "The open[-]source movement" is in dire straits: it contains several comparisons with free software that should go in the previous section; there's still "The line between the two is somewhat blurry", which is untrue and should be clarified; the section contains some comparisons with proprietary software that belong in the next section; aside from the heading, this section does not seem to be about the open-source movement at all. * "The open[-]source debate" section wanders quite a lot, especially in the first paragraph. To me, the last two paragraphs in the previous section (with the exception of the last sentence) do more to explain and justify the benefits of open source than than this entire section does. Much should be stricken, condensed, and rewritten for neutrality. When I can tell what POV the author(s) have by reading the article, it is not sufficiently Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The authors' POV is quite obvious in this article. -- User:Wapcaplet 19:19, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC) == Duplication cost == The article states: "After all, the cost of making a copy of a software program is essentially zero, so per-use fees may make sense for physical products but are not reasonable for software programs." This is not at all obvious or objective. Just because it doesn't cost much to copy software doesn't mean it's not reasonable to sell the software (incidentally, software is not typically sold "per-use", usually it is sold for unlimited use per person). It should also be kept in mind that most products are sold at well above their manufactoring costs. Software, in particular, may be very expensive to create in the first place. Anyway, this is all common knowledge. The quoted statement above is clearly biased and probably should be removed. -- Anonymous * Agreed. Some physical products also have a duplication cost that is very low: compact discs, for instance, only cost a few cents to make, and yet are sold at $5-$50 depending on their content - a pretty big markup, even if distribution/shipping costs are subtracted. (Isn't commercial software most often ''licensed'', though? I've never seen commercial software that permitted unlimited use by one person; it seems more common for it to be licensed for use on ''X'' computers, with ''X'' being 1 in most cases). -- User:Wapcaplet 18:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) ::I changed "so per-use fees are unreasonable" to "so per-use fees are perhaps unreasonable" because I agreed that it was too strongly worded. It is generally agreed that companies can mark-up products in order to make a profit, but it is also generally felt that companies should not mark-up to an unreasonable extent. A 10% markup on a physical object is reasonable, but in the case of paying for each copy of software, the markup (based on 'manufacturing cost') is enormous (a billion % or whatever). This sentence should stay in the article since it is a statement of a reasonable and widespread common-sense opinion. If someone wants to re-word it to make this more explicit, that would be fine (but perhaps unnecessarily cumbersome). There are many other complexities to the debate (such as the legitimacy of recouping R&D costs even if production costs are zero), but I still believe the sentence describes a rational concern. == Wikipedia=perfect example == I was surprised noone mentioned wikipedia's relationship to open-source. I added it under the list of Projects and organizations and wikisoftware under Examples of open-source software, but maybe someone who knows more about either subject could add more. user:inebriation station 2005-01-07 20:37 (UTC) :I changed it to MediaWiki since Wikipedia is the encyclopedia project, it's really just a user of the Mediawiki software. User:Rhobite 21:37, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC) ::Add a top link to Open Content, noting that this article is about ''software'', but that the term has other applications. Perhaps we need an Open Source movement page User:Stirling Newberry 22:23, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) :::Yeah, we have an Open source movement article. We may want to chop a paragraph or two out of Open source and put it in the sub-article, the section on this main article is a bit long. User:Rhobite 22:56, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC) == Open Gaming License == You can hardly expect the Open Gaming License to be significantly represented at SourceForge, since it's not a software license. It's linked to from open content, which is probably better, but the SourceForge test isn't perfect. -- User:Antaeus Feldspar 21:21, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC) : Then it categorically doesn't belong in this article. It belongs in open content. The SourceForge test is 100% fine for this article. User:Daniel Quinlan 21:55, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC) ==NPOV tag== I removed the NPOV tag that was just placed in the article as there has been no recent discussion of POV problems in the "Debate" section. There seemed to be issues in November, but since the tag was removed since that time, and since no new issues have seemed to show up here, I don't see a reason for the tag at this time. However, if there are reasons, please state them here before using the tag... please. :) — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 02:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) I put the NPOV tag up; I read the talk page, and there didn't seem to be a resolution. THe last word on the subject was, and I quote "When I can tell what POV the author(s) have by reading the article, it is not sufficiently NPOV. The authors' POV is quite obvious in this article." -- Wapcaplet 19:19, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC) So I thought the tag belonged. What was the resolution precisely? My first impression was that that part was heavily biased, hence my visit to the talk pages in the first place. And yes, I am a newbie, so please don't Wikipedia:Don%27t_bite_the_newbies for putting up the tag without permission :) User:Borisblue :I'm not trying to burn you, but it's just important to know why this tag is being placed on the page. It just seems astounding to me that the POV issues of five months ago weren't resolved at that time. I would suggest attempting to rewrite the section in an attempt to achieve NPOV before resorting to the tag again. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 15:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) Actually, I'm playing devil's advocate here; I don't spend a cent on propietery software- I've even volunteered in a few open content projects- in my eyes this section does seem blatantly POV, although it blatantly supports MY POV, which makes it much harder to fix. I'd thought that a nice way to start balancing the POV would be to add an external link against Open Source software. However, apparently there isn't a single webpage in the whole of the internet critical of Open Source! Did a google search on "arguments against open source" and came up with absolutely zilch; the only stuff I got were from articles which said, for example "some of Microsoft's idiotic arguments against open source were..." Maybe a few MS employee wikipedians can help?- user:Borisblue ==Time to remove Cleanup tag?== It seems to me that the article has become "reasonably cleaned up", so I would like to remove the tag. Any objections? — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 18:10, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC) :As no one seem to disagree with you I've taken away the cleanup-tag. Let's celebrate and continue to improve the article! User:Kesla 22:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Redirect?== While trying to clean up the opening paragraph, I came across this line- ''This article deals mainly with open source software''. The line is still there, (I just changed "mainly" to "primarily") but if this is the case, shouldn't the title of the article be "Open-source software" rather than "Open source"? Open Source is the more general term- I feel it should redirect to OSS and not the other way round, or perhaps it should go to a disambiguation page. -user:Borisblue :I thought "open source" applied to the documentation and not just the software... and perhaps even documentation and content in general. So I think it's ok as-is, and OSS should redirect here. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 02:54, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) Hmm... checked out wiktionary and the definition was "(computing) Of, or relating to source code that is publicly available" for [http://www.dictionary.com] it says "A method and philosophy for software licensing and distribution designed to encourage use and improvement of software written by volunteers by ensuring that anyone can copy the source code and modify it freely." Nothing on documentation here; I'd think "open source" only refers to source code. As such, I'm removing the ''This article deals mainly with open source software' line. I still think Open Source should redir to OSS, since they apparently refer to the same thing and OSS is less vague -User:Borisblue :The GFDL itself backs up my position. Source isn't just software, it's any textual content, such as the Wikipedia itself. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 12:29, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::Open source can apply philosophically to many sources of information. It is not just about software. On-line law libraries have a movement to be even more open source then they are. Some laws state that law codes must stay freely and publicly available -- open source in essence. More than the textual content, it also applies to any information, pictures, maps, authors, and etc. The OSD just defines a boundary on open source that applies to software and related information. User:Jhballard 14:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::By golly, you're right. I guess my coffee hadn't kicked in yet. :) Would you mind updating the opener to reflect this? — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 14:25, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC) :::I don't get it; we already have an article on open content which deals with the stuff you were talking about, ie information, maps pictures, etc.If you talk to anybody about open source, they'll assume it's about a programme. If you say open content, they assume it's stuff like wikipedia. I'd consider dictionary.com a pretty authorative source, even if wiktionary isn't; User:Borisblue :::::I've seen ''open source'' easily attached to software and its movement where others strive to set itself apart either as different or not. Its philosophy started well before the OSI trademark, which stood to present the pragmatic case against business as usual. At first, I voted to move the article to "open source software" to just describe the software, but there is enough movement , culture, and philosophy background to support this article to the literal means of ''open source''. I've never confused "source" to only mean a program's source code. User:Jhballard 14:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::::Fair enough then, in that case, would you mind changing the wiktionary entry of open source to reflect this? I'm not sure I have the expertise to define it properly user:Borisblue ::::::Updated: [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Open-source open-source]. User:Jhballard 23:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC) == Ownership. == Who really owns anything? Only those who lay claim to it, and really, once they're dead, they don't own it anymore. So who owns it when they're dead? Others. Others who inherit it, legally or illegally. Regardless, nothing is eternally owned by someone, so nothing is entirely owned because eventually, it will be up for grabs. ''So how does that affect open source ? Or did you really mean to comment on property ?'' == Layout & Content == After I have glared at the article for awhile, I moved some sections around to put an overall transition together. I've noticed that some sentences or paragraphic ideas are repeated several times. Redundancy is good to stress points, but it seems like the same ideas are just covered from different view points (not different point of views). The section about the participants and the model seem like that can be combined as they present the same overall idea, but one subjects the essay the other subjects the Core/Peripheral contrast. I added the search link to the related topics because there are so many related articles that it saved space. Comments? User:Jhballard 02:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC) == OpenSource logo == does anyone know when is the logo inargurated? User:P0lyglut 09:17, 2005 May 8 (UTC) == ??? == One of the most confusing articles I've ever encountered. So many views. Does anyone really understand Open Source? -- User:AL SAM 11:23, May 10, 2005 :That's why the 'cleanup' tag is there. At any rate, the article is far better than it was just a month ago. You might want to realize that complaints about articles here are generally rejected in favor of fixing the issues that exist in the article. What issues do you see exactly? — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 16:30, May 10, 2005 (UTC) == Are the Internet standards Open Source? == I have always assumed that the Internet standards are Open Source. Or at least the basic standards. But I find nothing about that in the article. Is my assumption wrong or hasn't anyone yet thought of putting that rather interresting piece of information in it? User:DirkvdM 13:30, 2005 May 11 (UTC) :See Open standards. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 14:19, May 11, 2005 (UTC) The IETF the Internet standards are Open standards. They are ''not'' Open source. (Does this article need to explain the difference ?). --User:DavidCary 10:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Open Source damaging to commercial market == User:Beachy wrote "many see the introduction of free software as damaging to the market for commercial software." Well, of course it is. That's how the free market works. So I removed that (and most of the rest of his edit). In retrospect, maybe it should just be put differently. Something like "free software constitutes a new form of competition that some deem 'unnatural' in the free market because it doesn't directly involve money." That doesn't sound quite right, but I don't have a problem with this new competition, so maybe I'm not the right person to put this complaint into words. With the word 'directly' I refer to the fact that free software ''can'' be used for commercial purposes. For Linux there are the distributions. And manufacturers more and more often provide free software with their products (eg editing software with cameras). Free software can be seen as a means to make money with something else. User:DirkvdM 08:48, 2005 May 21 (UTC) :Well, we can always quote what opponents of Open Source say. But even this "no money directly involved" is a weak argument, this is a standard strategy for complement goods. I wonder if the same people would also complain about The Gillette Company who famously give away the razors and sell the blades. With all due sympathy for the people who find themselves on the losing side in this development, I agree these are just people complaining about competition from a legal, unsubsidized business model. Welcome to free markets. User:Rl 09:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC) ::I don't think any advocate of open-source will ever be able to convincingly counter the argument that free software disrupts the commercial software market. Ah well, you guys had better censor out / dilute this argument then, eh? --User:Beachy 16:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC) :::Well, yeah. Of course non-commercial software is going to disrupt the commercial software market, in much the same way the restaurant industry might be disrupted if a large franchise started giving away free food. When it comes down to the line, people would rather get their (commercial and non-commercial) software for free, if they know they have the option. The argument isn't censored or diluted in this article; the term "free software" being perceived as "anti-commercial" is mentioned (though this seems like a different matter--it's one thing to be non-commercial, but another entirely to be anti-commercial), and the Open vs. closed source section discusses the matter to some extent, though it could stand to be improved. Just ''how much'' open-source software disrupts the sale of commercial software is probably up for debate, but I think everyone can agree that there's disruption. And as far as I'm concerned, the occasional disruption is what keeps a free market innovative. -- User:Wapcaplet 18:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC) ::::Be careful about "commercial", folks. A lot of Open Source software is commercial. Linux, Apache, MysSQL, and qt are all largely commercial software. What they are not is ''proprietary''. Big difference. User:Rl 18:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC) :::::Ehm...., Linux is not commercial, but the distributions are (at least the ones I know of). Commercial means money is involved and Linux (the kernel) can be downloaded for free. Right? User:DirkvdM 08:07, 2005 May 24 (UTC) ::::::Most of Linux kernel development today is done by people who get paid for it by for-profit companies like IBM, HP, or Red Hat. Apparently these companies believe it to be a sound investment that helps their profits. That meets my criteria for commercial funding, even though development method and licensing aren't necessarily what we're used to. User:Rl 11:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC) ::::"occasional disruption is what keeps a free market innovative" Are you sure? I thought it was fair competition that kept a market innovative? Many people consider that Microsoft giving away Internet Explorer for free destroyed the market for other proprietary web browsers (eg Netscape). Did this help keep the market innovative? :::::Where did Mozilla Firefox come from? It partially came about as a response to IE's dominance and fat-happy behavior of MS in not enhancing IE for a long period of time. It's certainly arguable, however, that MS removed the incentive for most commercial entities to enter or stay in the market with their proprietary browsers, with the exception of Opera. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 21:42, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC) :::::No, the problem (at least as far as the antitrust lawsuit was concerned) was that Microsoft ''leveraged its monopoly on Windows'' to destroy its competition. Making something freely available is not the same as integrating it with another product. MSIE is not "free" in the same way that Firefox is. MSIE may be free (beer), but Firefox is free (speech). -- User:Wapcaplet 23:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::Where "free as in beer" = ''gratis'' and "free as in speech" = ''libre''. :) — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 00:01, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC) ::::Much OSS software clones the featureset of proprietary software. Think OpenOffice, Firefox (cloning Opera) and Linux (cloning UNIX). These clones benefit from the innovation, usability testing and R&D of the proprietary software houses, but infiltrate the market with free versions of the software. This reduces the incentive for commercial innovation in the market, as more OSS cloners are likely to offer a free version almost immediately afterwards. --User:Beachy 21:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC) :::::Firefox is well ahead of IE and even Opera in terms of features, especially when you consider all the available extensions and the huge extension development community it has. Also, I believe this argument to be untimely, as there are multitudes of open-source offerings today that never had a commercial equivalent. It's just that we've seen several key categories of software being commodified as people have grown resistant to the costly upgrades to "new" versions of software where new developed features are adding virtually no value in terms of what customers actually want or use. It's very clear how arguments like this are made: when people get all their news from big corporate media, they tend to focus on what the corporate media finds to be important, and it often is quite insignificant compared to the real story as a whole. Open source is far bigger than MS getting its product lines beaten up with free alternatives. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 21:42, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC) Well, Open Source and innovation is a fascinating subject, and there are a number of reasons why Open Source tends to innovate more slowly than proprietary software development. However, as far as cloning is concerned, proprietary companies do the exact same thing. Microsoft invented neither the spreadsheet nor the word processor, they cloned what was already there. Neither Netscape nor Opera invented the browser, they cloned what already existed (as Open Source, incidentally). AOL didn't invent instand messaging, they cloned what others had come up with. Unix was based on ideas of older operating systems and many of the things that made it great were actually developed as Open Source software in Berkeley. — You are describing how software development has always worked, Open Source or not. As for what Microsoft did to Netscape: You'd be surprised. Yes, when Microsoft started giving away a browser for free, that got us a lot of innovation as long as the competition between Netscape and Microsoft lasted (which wasn't that long given the means Microsoft had at hand). Innovation stopped only after Microsoft had managed to practically seal the market. User:Rl 21:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC) :I agree with what you're saying in that commercial cloners do the same as OSS cloners. However, commercial cloning still 'abides by the rules' of the market, and must compete at cost. There will come a point where it is not commercially viable to clone other software because the market is saturated and the returns would not cover the costs. OSS software, on the other hand, does not abide by the same rules. It can introduce clones that needn't be commercially justifiable. In doing so, OSS removes the incentive for others to invest money in software devlepment. --User:Beachy 22:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC) ::I'm not sure I follow. Yes, OSS developers are not interrested in whether a solution is commercially justifiable. So? And if the market is saturated (do you mean by solutions or instances? - that difference really only exists in the commercial sector), then why would they put time into solving a problem that has already been solved? OSS also follows the rules of the market. It's just that cost of production is zero (it's the byproduct of a hobby) and distribution cost is also next to zero (Internet) and therefore the price is also zero. User:DirkvdM 08:07, 2005 May 24 (UTC) I'd hesitate to say the cost of OSS production is zero. As noted above, much significant open-source development occurs in a commercial environment, and you could still measure the man-hours that go into any project, regardless of cost. Its predominantly zero-cost nature isn't due to low production or duplication costs, but due to the choices of its copyright holders. -- User:Wapcaplet 23:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) == better introduction paragraph == The article currently starts :Open source means when sources of information, code, pictures, maps, authors, and everything related are all publicly viewable and openly modifiable. The "when" and "everything" seems to imply that "open source" is some distant time and/or place when ''all'' information is public, something like a gift economy or transparent society is a description of some distant time and/or place. But I think of "open source" as refering to certain things that already exist now. It's an attribute of "something", not a description of an environment. Also, consider the situation where I sell some product, and I bundle the source code with that product -- but I don't give the source code away free by itself to "the public". The "publicly viewable" seems to imply this product is ''not'' "open source", but (my interpretation of) "the" [http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php definition of open source] seems to say this product ''is'' open source. To fix those flaws, I changed the first paragraph to say :Something is open source when it includes everything needed to make improvements to it. In particular, open-source software includes a copy of all the source code. Open source hardware includes the CAD drawings necessary to build another copy. Also, "open source" typically implies that the source is licenced under terms that allow a person to legally sell it or give it away to others, without any fee or royalty. But that was reverted. I would welcome any other suggestions on how to fix those flaws. (Or am I just mistaken on those points?) --User:DavidCary 19:42, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I believe the replacement to be far less precise than what was there before, and also includes a needless reference to open source hardware. I welcome enhancements to the existing opener, of course, but less precision is the wrong direction. — Stevie_is_the_man!">User:Stevietheman User talk:Stevietheman | Special:Contributions/Stevietheman 20:03, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC) ::It appears the confusion starts when open source understood only as a tangible attribute to software, but it is simplier and more general in its full meaning. User:Jhballard 20:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) Would you agree that "open source hardware" is one kind of all "open source" stuff ? --User:DavidCary 10:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Open source





See other meanings of words starting from letter:

O

OA | OB | OC | OD | OE | OF | OG | OH | OI | OJ | OK | OL | OM | ON | OP | OR | OS | OT | OU | OW | OX | OY | OZ |

Words begining with Open_source:

Open-Source
Open-source
Open-source_(software)
Open-Source_Government
Open-source_government
Open-source_hardware
Open-source_intelligence
Open-source_licence
Open-source_license
Open-source_license
Open-source_movement
Open-source_search_engine
Open-source_search_engines
Open-source_search_engines
Open-source_software
Open_Source
Open_Source
Open_source
Open_source
Open_source
Open_Source_and_Linux_Organization
Open_Source_Applications_Foundation
Open_Source_Committee
Open_Source_Committee
Open_source_community
Open_source_content_management_systems
Open_source_convention
Open_source_convention
Open_Source_Culture
Open_Source_Culture
Open_source_culture
Open_source_culture
Open_Source_Definition
Open_Source_Definition
Open_Source_Development_Lab
Open_Source_Development_Labs
Open_Source_Development_Network
Open_Source_Ethics
Open_source_ethics
Open_Source_Funding
Open_Source_Funding
Open_source_funding
Open_source_funding
Open_source_games
Open_Source_Government
Open_source_government
Open_source_hardware
Open_Source_Industry_Australia
Open_Source_Initiative
Open_Source_Initiative
Open_source_intelligence
Open_source_intelligence
Open_source_journalism
Open_source_kg
Open_Source_License
Open_source_license
Open_source_license
Open_Source_Licenses
Open_source_licenses
Open_source_licenses
Open_Source_movement
Open_source_movement
Open_source_movement
Open_source_movements
Open_Source_Politics
Open_source_politics
Open_source_record_label
Open_source_record_label
Open_Source_Record_Labels
Open_source_religion
Open_Source_Software
Open_Source_Software
Open_source_software
Open_source_software
Open_Source_Software_CD
Open_source_software_distributions
Open_Source_Software_Institute
Open_Source_Technology_Group
Open_source_versus_closed_source
Open_source_versus_free_software
Open_source_vs._closed_source
Open_source_vs._free_software
Open_Source_Vulnerability_Database
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL



YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
encyklopedia online