Difference between revisions of "Free and open-source software"

From LIMSWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created stub. Editing now.)
 
 
(12 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{ombox
[[File:Free and open-source software logo (2009).svg|right]]
| type      = content
'''Free and open-source software''' ('''FOSS''') is computer [[software]] that can be classified as a union of two software development models: free software and [[open-source software]]. First, anyone is licensed to freely use, copy, study, and change the software in any way. Second, the source code is openly shared so that people are encouraged to voluntarily improve the design of the software.<ref name="GNUFreeDef">{{cite web |url=https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html |title=What is free software? |work=GNU.org |publisher=Free Software Foundation, Inc |date=01 January 2016 |accessdate=13 January 2016}}</ref> In contrast, [[proprietary software]] is under restrictive copyright, and the source code is usually hidden from users.
| style    = width: 500px;
| text      = This article should not be considered complete until this message box has been removed. This is a work in progress.
}}


[[File:Desktop-Linux-Mint.png|thumb|A screenshot of free and open-source software: [[Linux Mint]] running the [[Xfce]] [[desktop environment]], [[Firefox]], a calculator program, the built-in calendar, [[Vim (text editor)|Vim]], [[GIMP]], and [[VLC media player]]]]
Despite similarities in their development models, both "free software" and "open-source software" feature differing cultures and philosophies.<ref name="FellerPersp05">{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=C0Z30r8qdpcC |title=Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software |author=Feller, Joseph; Fitzgerald, Brian; Hissam, Scott A.; Lakhani, Karim R. |year=2005 |publisher=MIT Press |location=Cambridge, MA |pages=538 |isbn=9780262062466 |accessdate=13 January 2016}}</ref> "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'".<ref name="GNUFreeDef" /> while focusing on the fundamental freedoms it gives to users. The "open-source" component, however, focuses on the perceived strengths of its peer-to-peer development model.<ref name="FellerPersp05" /> Despite these differences, the term "FOSS" can generally be used without particular bias towards either political approach.


'''Free and open-source software''' ('''FOSS''') is [[computer software]] that can be classified as both [[free software]] and [[open-source software]].{{efn|FOSS is an inclusive term that covers both [[free software]] and [[open-source software]], which despite describing similar development models, have differing cultures and philosophies.{{sfn|Feller|2005|pages=89, 362}} ''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 {{cite web | url = https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html | publisher = GNU.org | title = The Free Software Definition | accessdate =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.{{sfn|Feller|2005|pages=101–106, 110–111}} FOSS is a term that can be used without particular bias towards either political approach.}} That is, anyone is [[free software license|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.<ref>{{cite web|last=Free Software Foundation|title=What is free software?|url=https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html|accessdate=14 December 2011}}</ref> This is in contrast to [[proprietary software]], where the software is under restrictive [[copyright]] and the source code is usually hidden from the users.
The benefits of using FOSS potentially include decreasing software costs, increasing security and stability (especially in regard to malware), protecting privacy, and giving users more control over their software development.<ref name="ClaburnStudy07">{{cite news |url=http://www.informationweek.com/study-finds-open-source-benefits-business-/d/d-id/1050799? |title=Study Finds Open Source Benefits Business |author=Claburn, Thomas |work=InformationWeek |publisher=CMP Media, LLC |date=17 January 2007 |accessdate=13 January 2016}}</ref><ref name="WheelerWhy15">{{cite web |url=http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html |title=Why Open Source Software / Free Software (OSS/FS, FLOSS, or FOSS)? Look at the Numbers! |author=Wheeler, David A. |work=DWheeler.com |date=18 July 2015 |accessdate=13 January 2016}}</ref>


The benefits of using FOSS can include decreasing software costs, increasing security and stability (especially in regard to [[malware]]), protecting [[privacy]], and giving users more control over their own hardware. Free, open-source operating systems such as [[Linux]] and descendents of [[BSD]] are widely utilized today, powering millions of [[server (computing)|servers]], [[desktop computer|desktops]], smartphones (e.g. [[Android (operating system)|Android]]), and other devices.{{sfn|Hatlestad|2005}}{{sfn|Claburn|2007}} [[Free software license]]s and [[open-source license]]s are used by [[List of open-source software packages|many software packages]].
==History==
In the 1950s and '60s, it was common for computer users to have the source code for all programs they used as well as the permission and ability to modify it for their own use. Software, including source code, was commonly shared by individuals who used computers. Most companies had a business model based on hardware sales, and provided or bundled the software free of charge.<ref name="BainbridgeBerk04">{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=568u_k1R4lUC&pg=PA532 |title=Berkshire Encyclopedia of Human-computer Interaction |editor=Bainbridge, William S. |publisher=Berkshire Publishing Group |location=Barrington, MA |year=2004 |pages=958 |isbn=9780974309125 |accessdate=13 January 2016}}</ref><ref name="RostTheDark11">{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=f_FyOg5XW_IC&pg=PT202 |title=The Dark Side of Software Engineering: Evil on Computing Projects |author=Rost, Johann; Glass, Robert L. |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |location=Hoboken, NJ |year=2011 |pages=316 |isbn=9780470922873 |accessdate=13 January 2016}}</ref> Organizations of users and suppliers such as SHARE and DECUS were formed to further facilitate the exchange of software and provide technical advice.<ref name="JonesTheTech13">{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_H8lAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA87 |title=The Technical and Social History of Software Engineering |author=Jones, Capers |publisher=Addison-Wesley |location=Upper Saddle River, NJ |year=2013 |pages=496 |isbn=9780133365894 |accessdate=13 January 2016}}</ref>


== History ==
By the late 1960s, the prevailing business model around software was beginning to change. A growing and evolving software industry was competing with hardware manufacturers' bundled software products; rather than funding software development from hardware revenue, these new companies were selling software directly. Leased machines required software support while providing no revenue for software, and some customers able to better meet their own needs did not want the costs of software bundled with their hardware costs. In ''United States vs. IBM'', filed January 17, 1969, the government charged that bundled software was anticompetitive.<ref name="FisherIBM83">{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZI-1AAAAIAAJ |title=IBM and the U.S. Data Processing Industry: An Economic History |author=Fisher, Franklin M.; McKie, James W.; Mancke, Richard B. |publisher=Praeger |year=1983 |isbn=9780030630590}}</ref><ref name="JonesTheTech13" />
{{Main|History of free and open-source software}}
{{Out of sync|History of free and open-source software|date=June 2015}}


In the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, 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. Most companies had a business model based on [[computer hardware|hardware]] sales, and provided or bundled the software free of charge.{{citation needed|date=July 2014}} Organizations of users and suppliers were formed to facilitate the exchange of software; see, for example, [[SHARE (computing)|SHARE]] and [[DECUS]].
By the 1970s and early 1980s, pure software companies were fully developed, with some in the industry beginning to use technical measures (such as only distributing 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. This idea that the underlying code in software was something to protect was further cemented in 1980, when copyright law was extended to computer programs in the United States<ref name="USGovPL96-517">{{cite web |url=https://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/PL96-517.pdf |title=Public Law 96-517 |publisher=National Institutes of Health |date=12 December 1980 |format=PDF |accessdate=13 January 2016}}</ref> — previously, computer programs could only be considered ideas, procedures, methods, systems, and processes, which were not copyrightable.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.lib.purdue.edu/uco/CopyrightBasics/basics.html |title=Copyright Overview |work=Copyright Basics |publisher=Purdue University |date=2009 |accessdate=13 January 2016}}</ref><ref name="WeberTheSuc09">{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=78SLSiWqy14C&pg=PA4 |title=The Success of Open Source |author=Weber, Steve |publisher=Harvard University Press |location=Cambridge, MA |year=2009 |pages=320 |isbn=9780674044999 |accessdate=13 January 2016}}</ref>


By the late 1960s, the prevailing business model around software was changing. A growing and evolving software industry was competing with the hardware manufacturer's bundled software products; rather than funding software development from hardware revenue, these new companies were selling software directly. Leased machines required software support while providing no revenue for software, and some customers able to better meet their own needs did not want the costs of software bundled with hardware product costs. In ''United States vs. [[IBM]]'', filed 17 January 1969, the government charged that bundled software was anticompetitive.{{sfn|Fisher|McKie|Mancke|1983}} While some software might always be free, there would be a growing amount of software that was for sale only. In the 1970s and early 1980s, some parts of the [[software industry]] began using technical measures (such as only distributing [[Executable|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]]<ref>[http://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/PL96-517.pdf Computer Software 1980 Copyright Act, Pub. L. No. 96-517, 94 Stat. 3015, 3028].</ref>&mdash;previously, computer programs could be considered ideas, procedures, methods, systems, and processes, which are not copyrightable.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.lib.purdue.edu/uco/CopyrightBasics/basics.html|title=Copyright Basics}}</ref>{{sfn|Weber|2009}}
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.<ref name="WilliamsFree02">{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IELrzjhGFDQC |title=Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman's Crusade for Free Software |author=Williams, Sam |publisher=O'Reilly and Associates |location=Sabastopol, CA |year=2002 |pages=240 |isbn=9781449323363}}</ref> 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 and went on to promote concepts such as "free software" and "copyleft" licensing.<ref name="GNUMani">{{cite web |url=http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.en.html |title=The GNU Manifesto |work=GNU.org |publisher=Free Software Foundation, Inc |date=02 June 2015 |accessdate=13 January 2016}}</ref>


In 1983, [[Richard Stallman]], longtime member of the [[hacker (programmer subculture)|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.{{sfn|William|2002}} 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.
Stallman's efforts would eventually go on to influence other programmers. Linus Torvalds released the Linux kernel in 1991. Though Linux was not initially released under a free or open-source software license, Torvalds re-licensed the project under the GNU General Public License with version 0.12 in February 1992.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/Historic/old-versions/RELNOTES-0.12 |title=Release notes for Linux v0.12 |author=Torvalds, Linus |work=The Linux Kernel Archive |publisher=Linux Kernel Organization, Inc |date=February 1992 |accessdate=13 January 2016}}</ref> Much like Unix, Torvalds' kernel attracted the attention of volunteer programmers.<ref name="LarkinSamson07">{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=bh6bmGYcCxwC&pg=PA197 |title=Samson and the Pirate Monks: Calling Men to Authentic Brotherhood |author=Larkin, Nate |publisher=Thomas Nelson |location=Nashville, TN |pages=224 |year=2007 |isbn=9781418577698 |accessdate=13 January 2016}}</ref><ref name="EganDBA00">{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TszUjeyeo8cC&pg=PA2 |title=DBAs Guide to Databases On Linux |author=Egan, David; Zikopoulous, Paul |publisher=Syngress Media, Inc |location=Rockland, MA |pages=485 |year=2000 |isbn=9780080530291 |accessdate=13 January 2016}}</ref> Other open-source projects that started or picked up speed during the early to mid-'90s include FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and Apache.


The [[Linux kernel]], started by [[Linus Torvalds]], was released as freely modifiable source code in 1991. Initially, Linux was not released under a free or open-source software license. However, with version 0.12 in February 1992, he relicensed the project under the [[GNU General Public License]].<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/Historic/old-versions/RELNOTES-0.12 | title=Release notes for Linux kernel 0.12 | publisher=Kernel.org }}</ref> Much like Unix, Torvalds' kernel attracted the attention of volunteer programmers.{{citation needed|date=June 2015}}
In 1997, Eric Raymond published ''The Cathedral and the Bazaar'', a reflective analysis of the hacker community and free software principles, comparing commercial (cathedral) and dispersed (bazaar) software development. A roundtable meeting of Linux community members and Raymond resulted in the creation of an "open source" definition and adoption of its ideal; the original announcement of what became known as The Open Source Definition was made on February 9, 1998 on Slashdot<ref name="SDFree98">{{cite web |url=http://news.slashdot.org/story/98/02/09/213900/free-softwares-new-name |title=Free Software's New Name |publisher=SlashdotMedia |work=Slashdot |date=09 February 1998 |accessdate=14 January 2016}}</ref> and elsewhere. The paper and associated community meetings received significant attention afterwards, with Raymond and programmer Bruce Perens starting the Open Source Initiative. Shortly before that, Netscape Communications Corporation announced it would be working towards releasing their popular Netscape Communicator Internet suite — today known as Mozilla Firefox and Thunderbird — as free and open-source software.<ref name="RaymondTheCath97">{{cite journal |url=http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1472/1387 |title=The Cathedral and the Bazaar |journal=First Monday |author=Raymond, Eric S. |issue=Special issue #2 |date=03 October 2005 |doi=10.5210/fm.v0i0.1472 |accessdate=13 January 2016}}</ref><ref name="MuffattoOpen06">{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=cGW7CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA14 |title=Open Source: A Multidisciplinary Approach |author=Muffatto, Moreno |publisher=Imperial College Press |location=London |pages=260 |year=2006 |isbn=9781908979803 |accessdate=14 January 2016}}</ref>


[[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]] [[Fork (software development)|forked]] from NetBSD in 1995. Also in 1995, The [[Apache HTTP Server]], commonly referred to as Apache, was released under the [[Apache License|Apache License 1.0]].
It didn't take long for the free and open source buzz to catch on. One of the first known public uses of the free open-source software concept (outside Raymond and Netscape Communications) was in a Usenet posting on March 19, 1998 advertising the free open-source KLyX word processing app, a little more than a month after the term ''open source'' itself was coined.<ref name="KlausAnnounce98">{{cite web |url=http://www.theusenetarchive.com/usenet-message-de-comp-text-tex-comp-text-tex-fwd-announce-kl-27758785.htm |title=fwd: announce: klyx -- the kde document processor |author=Klaus; Niepraschk, Rolf |work=The Usenet Archive |date=19 March 1998 |accessdate=13 January 2016}}</ref> However, 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. Microsoft executive Jim Allchin 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."<ref name="CharnyMicrosoft01">{{cite news |url=http://www.cnet.com/news/microsoft-raps-open-source-approach/ |title=Microsoft Raps Open-Source Approach |author=Charny, Ben |work=CNET |publisher=CBS Interactive Inc |date=02 January 2002 |accessdate=14 January 2016}}</ref>


In 1997, [[Eric S. Raymond|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 [[Mozilla Thunderbird|Thunderbird]].
Despite this sentiment and the role FOSS has historically played outside the mainstream of software development and business IT, the gradual adoption of open-source software in the business world began to take shape. In August 2005, Oracle president Charles Phillips spoke at the LinuxWorld trade show, reporting that "open source experienced 32 percent unit growth and 31 percent revenue growth in 2004 as it began to move more deeply into the data center."<ref name="HatlestadLinux05">{{cite news |last=Hatlestad |first=Luc |url=http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=168600351 |title=LinuxWorld Showcases Open-Source Growth, Expansion |accessdate=2007-11-25 |date=August 9, 2005 |work=InformationWeek |publisher=CMP Media, LLC |archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5Tchd69ij |archivedate=2007-11-25}}</ref> Companies such as IBM also began to integrate Linux and other open-source solutions into their attempts to better support business-class customers.<ref name="HatlestadLinux05" /> Additionally, companies large and small begun to develop official open-source presences on the internet. As corporate philosophies began to shift, companies like IBM, Oracle, Google, and State Farm started to command a more serious public stake in the competitive open-source market.<ref name="MillerFree10">{{cite journal |title=Free and open source software |journal=IT Professional |author=Miller, K.W.; Voas, J.; Costello, T. |volume=12 |number=6 |pages=14-16 |year=2010 |doi=10.1109/MITP.2010.147}}</ref>


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 use of the new term and evangelize open-source principles.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://opensource.org/history |title=History of the OSI | publisher=Opensource.org}}</ref>
==Alternative terms for FOSS==
 
Much ado has been made over the past few decades about the labels applied to software that does not require payment to use and is open to investigation and modification by the user. Computer scientists such as Richard Stallman<ref name="StallmanFLOSS15">{{cite web |url=http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html |title=FLOSS and FOSS |author=Stallman, Richard |work=GNU.org |publisher=Free Software Foundation, Inc |date=09 November 2015 |accessdate=14 January 2016}}</ref>, Bruce Perens<ref name="PerensItsTime99">{{cite web |url=https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/02/msg01641.html |title=It's Time to Talk About Free Software Again |author=Perens, Bruce |work=lists.debian.org |publisher=Software in the Public Interest, Inc |date=17 February 1999 |accessdate=14 January 2016}}</ref>, David Wheeler<ref name="WheelerOpen15">{{cite web |url=http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_refs.html |title=Open Source Software / Free Software (OSS/FS or FLOSS) References |author=Wheeler, David A. |work=DWheeler.com |date=2015 |accessdate=14 January 2016}}</ref>, and Björn Schießle<ref name="SchiebleFree12">{{cite web |url=https://blog.schiessle.org/2012/05/11/free-software-open-source-foss-floss-same-same-but-different/ |title=Free Software, Open Source, FOSS, FLOSS – Same same but different |author=Schießle, Björn |work=blog.schiessle.org |date=11 May 2012 |accessdate=14 January 2016}}</ref> have all published their thoughts on what the most apt terminology should be. Aside from FOSS, the following are the most common terms that have been used.
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."{{sfn|Charny|2001}} This view perfectly summarizes the initial response to FOSS by some software corporations.{{citation needed|date=November 2012}} However, while FOSS has historically played a role outside of the mainstream of private software development, companies as large as [[Microsoft]] have begun to develop official open-source presences on the Internet. IBM, Oracle, Google and State Farm are just a few of the companies with a serious public stake in today's competitive [[open-source]] market. There has been a significant shift in the corporate philosophy concerning the development of free and open-source software (FOSS).{{sfn|Miller|Voas|Costello|2010|pages=14–16}}
 
==Controversy==
{{controversy section|date=June 2015}}
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 [[DMCA]], the Free Software Foundation released [[GPL version 3|version 3 of its GNU Public License]] in 2007 that explicitly addressed the DMCA and patent rights.
 
After the development of the [[GNU GPLv3]], the FSF (as copyright holder of many pieces of the GNU system) updated many{{citation needed|date=November 2012}} of the GNU programs' licenses from GPLv2 to GPLv3. [[Apple, Inc.|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{{sfn|Brockmeier|2010}} but is under a [[permissive license]].<ref>{{cite web | url=http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#license | title=LLVM Developer Policy | publisher=LLVM | accessdate=November 19, 2012}}</ref> [[LWN.net|LWN]] speculated that Apple was motivated partly by a desire to avoid GPLv3.{{sfn|Brockmeier|2010}} The [[Samba (software)|Samba]] project also switched to GPLv3, which Apple replaced in their software suite with a closed-source, proprietary software alternative.{{sfn|Holwerda|2011}}
 
Mergers have affected major open-source software. [[Sun Microsystems]] (Sun) acquired [[MySQL AB]], owner of the popular open-source [[MySQL]] database, in 2008.<ref name="sun buys mysql">{{cite web |title=Sun to Acquire MySQL|publisher=MySQL AB |url=http://mysql.com/news-and-events/sun-to-acquire-mysql.html |accessdate=2008-01-16 }}</ref>
 
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.{{sfn|Thomson|2011}} Partly in response to uncertainty about the future of MySQL, the FOSS community [[Fork (software development)|forked]] the project into new [[database management system|database systems]] outside of Oracle's control. These include [[MariaDB]], [[Percona]], and [[Drizzle (database)|Drizzle]].{{sfn|Samson|2011}} All of these have distinct names; they are distinct projects and can not use the trademarked name MySQL.{{sfn|Nelson|2009}}
 
In August, 2010, [[Oracle Corporation|Oracle]] sued [[Google]], claiming that its use of [[Java (software platform)|Java]] in [[Android (software)|Android]] infringed on Oracle's copyrights and patents. The [[Oracle v. Google]] case ended in May 2012, with the finding that Google did not infringe on Oracle's patents, and the trial judge 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 [[stipulation (law)|stipulated]] that Google would pay no damages.{{sfn|Niccolai|2012}} Oracle has appealed to the [[Federal Circuit]], and Google has filed a [[cross-appeal]] on the literal copying claim.{{sfn|Jones|2012}}
 
==Naming==
{{Main|Alternative terms for free software}}
{{duplicates|section|dupe=Alternative terms for free software|date=June 2015}}


===Free software===
===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.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html |title=GNU.org |work=GNU.org |date=20 September 2011 |accessdate=23 October 2011}}</ref> The earliest known publication of the definition of his free software idea was in the February 1986 edition<ref name="bull6">{{cite web | url=https://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull1.txt | title=GNU's Bulletin, Volume 1 Number 1, page 8 | publisher=GNU.org}}</ref> 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 April 2008, it is published there in 39 languages.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#translations | title=The Free Software Definition – Translations of this page | publisher=GNU.org }}</ref>
Richard Stallman's Free Software Definition, adopted by the Free Software Foundation (FSF), defines free software as a matter of freedom or liberty, not price. More specifically, he places the following stipulations on free software:
 
=== Open source ===
 
The [[Open Source Definition]] is used by the [[Open Source Initiative]] to determine whether a [[computer software|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]].{{sfn|Perens|1999}}<ref>{{cite web|url=http://opensource.org/docs/osd|title=''The Open Source Definition''}}, The Open Source Definition according to the Open Source Initiative</ref> Perens did not base his writing on the four freedoms of free software from the [[Free Software Foundation]], which were only later available on the web.{{cn|date=June 2015}} Perens later 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.{{cn|date=June 2015}}
 
=== FOSS ===
 
The first known use of the phrase ''free open-source software'' on [[Usenet]] was in a posting on 18 March 1998, just a month after the term ''open source'' itself was coined.{{cn|date=June 2015}} In February 2002, F/OSS appeared on a [[Usenet]] newsgroup dedicated to [[Amiga]] [[computer games]].{{cn|date=June 2015}} In early 2002, [[MITRE]] used the term FOSS in what would later be their 2003 report "[[Use of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) in the U.S. Department of Defense]]".{{cn|date=June 2015}}
 
=== FLOSS ===
 
The acronym ''FLOSS'' was coined in 2001 by [[Rishab Aiyer Ghosh]] for ''free/libre/open-source software''.{{citation needed|date=June 2015}} Later that year, the [[European Commission]] (EC) used the phrase when they funded a study on the topic.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://flossproject.org/|title=Free/Libre and Open Source Software: Survey and Study}}</ref>
 
Unlike [[Gratis versus Libre|libre]] software, which aimed to solve the ambiguity problem, FLOSS aimed to avoid taking sides in the debate over whether it was better to say "free software" or to say "open-source software".
 
Proponents of the term point out that parts of the FLOSS acronym can be translated into other languages, with for example the ''F'' representing ''free'' (English) or ''frei'' (German), and the ''L'' representing ''libre'' (Spanish or French), ''livre'' (Portuguese), or ''libero'' (Italian), ''liber'' (Romanian) and so on. However, this term is not often used in official, non-English, documents, since the words in these languages for ''free as in freedom'' do not have the ambiguity problem of ''free'' in English.
 
By the end of 2004, the FLOSS acronym had been used in official English documents issued by South Africa,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.naci.org.za/floss/index.html|title=Free/Libre and Open Source Software and Open Standards in South Africa: A Critical Issue for Addressing the Digital Divide|publisher=National Advisory Council on Innovation}}{{dead link|date=April 2014}}</ref> Spain,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/1637/470 |title=FLOSS deployment in Extremadura, Spain |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/20071216171951/http://ec.europa.eu:80/idabc/en/document/1637/470 |archivedate=December 16, 2007 }}</ref> and Brazil.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.softwarelivre.org/news/1727|title=Relatório da ONU aponta o Software Livre (FLOSS) como melhor}}{{dead link|date=April 2014}}</ref>
 
== Licensing: copyleft vs permissive {{anchor|Licensing}} ==
{{further|Free software license|Open-source license}}
 
Licenses that restrict mixing of works licensed under them with proprietary works, like [[GNU GPL 3]], are called [[copyleft]] licenses.{{citation needed|date=February 2015}}
 
Licenses considered to have minimum restrictions of that kind, like [[Apache license]], are called [[permissive software license]]s.{{citation needed|date=February 2015}}
 
== Dualism of FOSS ==
 
The primary license difference between free software and [[open source]] is one of philosophy. According to the Free Software Foundation, "Nearly all open source software is free software. The two terms describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for views based on fundamentally different values."{{sfn|Stallman|n.d.}}
 
Thus, the Open Source Initiative considers many free software licenses to also be open-source. These include the latest versions of the FSF's three main licenses: the GPL, the [[Lesser General Public License]] (LGPL), and the [[GNU Affero General Public License]] (AGPL).<ref>{{cite web|title=Licenses by Name|url=http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical|work=Open Source License|publisher=Open Source Initiative|accessdate=23 October 2011}}</ref>
 
== Adoption ==
{{See also|Linux adoption|Free software#Adoption|Open-source software#Adoption}}
 
=== Adoption by governments ===
{{main|Adoption of free and open-source software by public institutions}}
{{quote box|width=25%|quote="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."|source=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.{{sfn|Gunter|2013}}{{sfn|Bridgewater|2013}} }}
 
The Government of [[Kerala]], India, announced its official support for free/open-source software in its State IT Policy of 2001,<ref>{{cite web| url=http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan002950.pdf | title="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}}</ref>{{discuss|State IT Policy of 2001}} 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]]).<ref>http://www.keralait.org/blog/2011/02/25/chief-minister-inaugurates-icfoss-in-kerala/</ref> In March 2015 the Indian government announced a policy on adoption of open source software.{{sfn|Alawadhi|2015}}<ref>{{cite web | url=http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/policy_on_adoption_of_oss.pdf | title=Policy on Adoption of Open Source Software for Government of India}}</ref>
 
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.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.muenchen.de/rathaus/Stadtverwaltung/Direktorium/LiMux/Zahlen_Fakten/Projektstatus.html |title=Landeshauptstadt München - Aktuelle Zahlen |language=German | publisher=Muenchen.de |date= |accessdate=2014-07-28}}</ref>
 
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, this ambitious transition was still under way.<ref>{{es icon}} [http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/12/venezuela_open_source.html Venezuela Open Source]{{dead link|date=April 2014}}</ref><ref name="Venezuela">{{cite web|url = http://www.tsj.gov.ve/gaceta/Diciembre/281204/281204-38095-08.html|title = Publicado en la Gaceta oficial No 38.095 de fecha 28/ 12/ 2004 |accessdate =23 October 2011|last = Chavez|first = Hugo F.|authorlink = |date=December 2004}}</ref> [[Malaysia]] launched the "Malaysian Public Sector Open Source Software Program", saving millions on proprietary software licenses until 2008.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.oscc.org.my/ |title=OSCC.org |work=OSCC.org |accessdate=23 October 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://knowledge.oscc.org.my/newsletters/first-quarterly-e-newsletter-jan-2009 |title=OSCC.org |accessdate=23 October 2011}}</ref>
 
In 2005 the [[Government of Peru]] voted to adopt open source across all its bodies.{{sfn|Clarke|2005}} 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."<ref name="NACI">{{cite web|url=http://www.prodefinity.de/docs/floss_v2_6_9.pdf |title=Free/Libre & Open Source Software and Open Standards in South Africa |accessdate=31 May 2008 |last=National Advisory Council on Innovation Open Software Working Group |authorlink= |date=July 2004 |format=PDF |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/20141222121451/http://www.prodefinity.de:80/docs/floss_v2_6_9.pdf |archivedate=December 22, 2014 }}</ref> In September, the [[Commonwealth of Massachusetts]] announced its formal adoption of the OpenDocument standard for all Commonwealth entities.{{sfn|Casson|Ryan|2006}}
 
In 2006, the [[Federal government of Brazil|Brazilian government]] has simultaneously encouraged the distribution of cheap computers running Linux throughout its poorer communities by subsidizing their purchase with tax breaks.{{sfn|Casson|Ryan|2006}}
 
In April 2008,<ref>{{Cite web|url = http://compgroups.net/comp.os.linux.advocacy/-news-ecuador-ahead-of-the-world-with/1773288|title = [News] Ecuador Ahead of the World with Democracy of Knowledge|date = |accessdate = |website = |publisher = |last = |first = }}</ref> [[Ecuador]] passed a similar law, Decree 1014, designed to migrate the public sector to Libre Software.<ref>{{es icon}} [http://www.estebanmendieta.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/Decreto_1014_software_libre_Ecuador.pdf Estebanmendieta.com], Decree 1014</ref>


In February 2009, the [[United States]] [[White House]] moved its website to Linux servers using [[Drupal]] for content management.{{sfn|Vaughan-Nichols|2009}}
<blockquote>A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms:


In March, the [[National Gendarmerie|French Gendarmerie Nationale]] announced it will totally switch to [[Ubuntu (operating system)|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.{{sfn|Paul|2009}}
* 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 your neighbor (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.<ref name="GNUFreeDef" /></blockquote>


In January 2010, the [[Government of Jordan]] announced a partnership with [[Ingres Corporation]] (now named Actian), a open source database management company based in the United States, to promote open-source software use, starting with university systems in Jordan.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.itp.net/578825-jordan-information-ministry-signs-deal-on-open-source |title=Jordan Information Ministry signs deal on open source - Government - News & Features |work=ITP.net |accessdate=2012-04-23}}</ref>
The earliest known publication of the definition of his free software idea was in the February 1986 edition of the FSF's now-discontinued GNU's Bulletin publication.<ref name="StallmanBullFeb86">{{cite journal | url=https://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull1.txt |title=What is the Free Software Foundation? |journal=GNU's Bulletin |author=Stallman, Richard M. |volume=1 |issue=1 |pages=8–9 |year=February 1986 |accessdate=14 January 2016}}</ref> The canonical source for the document is in the philosophy section of the GNU Project website and is published in 40 different languages.<ref name="GNUFreeDef" />


In September 2014, the [[Uganda]] [[National Information Technology Authority (NITA-U)]] announced a call for feedback on an Open Source Strategy & Policy<ref>[http://ictau.ug/call-for-feedback-on-the-open-source-strategy-policy/ "Open Source Strategy & Policy" ]</ref> at a workshop in conjunction with the [[ICT Association of Uganda (ICTAU)]]
The term "free software" is essentially the predecessor of "open source," which was brought to the public conscious by Eric Raymond's ''The Cathedral and the Bazaar'' in late 1997 and early 1998. In his noted revisions, Raymond documented "I changed 'free software' to 'open source'" on February 9, 1998<ref name="RaymondTheCath97" />, the same day the open source definition was publicly announced.<ref name="SDFree98" />


== FOSS and Benkler's new economy ==
===Open source===
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.{{sfn|Benkler|2003}}
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 programmer and free software activist Bruce Perens.<ref name="PerensTheOpen99">{{cite book |url=http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/opensources/book/perens.html |chapter=The Open Source Definition |title=Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution |author=Perens, Bruce |publisher=O'Reilly Media |year=1999 |isbn=1565925823}}</ref><ref name="OSI_OSDef">{{cite web |url=http://opensource.org/docs/osd |title=The Open Source Definition |publisher=Open Source Initiative |date=22 March 2007 |accessdate=14 January 2016}}</ref> Perens did not base his writing on the four freedoms of free software from the Free Software Foundation, which were only later available on the web. Perens eventually left the OSI in 1999, a year after co-founding it. In an email to the Debian developers mailing list explaining his decision, he stated that though "most hackers know that Free Software and Open Source are just two words for the same thing", the success of "open source" as a marketing term had "de-emphasized the importance of the freedoms involved in Free Software."; he added, "It's time for us to fix that." He also stated his regret that OSI co-founder Eric Raymond "seem[ed] to be losing his free software focus."<ref name="PerensItsTime99" />


This new economy is already under development. To commercialize FOSS, many companies move towards advertisement-supported software. In such a model, the only way to increase revenue is to make the advertisement more valuable. [[Facebook]] has recently been criticized for using novel methods of tracking users to accomplish this.{{sfn|ElBoghdady|Tsukayama|2011}}
===FLOSS===
The term "FLOSS" (free/libre and open-source software) was coined in 2001 by Rishab Aiyer Ghosh, Gregorio Robles, and other members of the Infonomics FLOSS team for a European Commission-funded project on the open source/free software (OS/FS) phenomena.<ref name="FellerPersp05" /><ref name="GhoshFree02">{{cite web |url=http://floss.infonomics.nl/outline.htm |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20021215064824/http://floss.infonomics.nl/outline.htm |title=Free/Libre and Open Source Software: Survey and Study |author=Berlecon Research |publisher=European Commission |date=June 2002 |archivedate=15 December 2002 |accessdate=14 January 2016}}</ref><ref name="HerbstSexing08">{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=QV8ZBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA26 |title=Sexing Code: Subversion, Theory and Representation |author=Herbst, Claudia |publisher=Cambridge Scholars Publishing |location=Newcastle |year=2008 |isbn=9781847184795 |accessdate=14 January 2016}}</ref>


This new economy has alternatives. Apple's [[App Store (iOS)|App Stores]] have proven very popular with both users and developers. The Free Software Foundation considers Apple's App Stores to be incompatible with its GPL and complained that Apple was infringing on the GPL with its [[iTunes]] terms of use. Rather than change those terms to comply with the GPL, Apple removed the GPL-licensed products from its App Stores.{{sfn|Vaughan-Nichols|2011}}
The term "FLOSS" aims to avoid taking sides in the debate over whether it was better to say "free software" or to say "open-source software". Proponents of the term point out that parts of the FLOSS acronym can be translated into other languages, with for example the "F" representing "free" (English) or "''frei''" (German), and the '"L" representing "''libre''" (Spanish or French), "''livre''" (Portuguese), or "''libero''" (Italian), "''liber''" (Romanian), and so on. However, this term is not often used in official non-English documents since the words in these languages don't have the same ambiguity as "free" does in English (either as "without cost" or as "freedom").<ref name="WheelerWhy15" /><ref name="StallmanFLOSS15" />


==See also==
==See also==
Line 119: Line 52:


==Further reading==
==Further reading==
* {{cite web |url=http://www.gnu.org.ua/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html |title=Why "Free Software" is better than "Open Source" |accessdate=2007-11-25 |last=Barr |first=Joe |year=1998 |publisher=[[Free Software Foundation]] |archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5TchyyzYm |archivedate=2007-11-25}}
* {{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=C0Z30r8qdpcC |title=Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software |author=Feller, Joseph; Fitzgerald, Brian; Hissam, Scott A.; Lakhani, Karim R. |year=2005 |publisher=MIT Press |location=Cambridge, MA |pages=538 |isbn=9780262062466}}
* {{cite web |last=Salus |first=Peter H. |title=A History of Free and Open Source |url=http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050327184603969 |work=Groklaw |date=March 28, 2005 |accessdate=2015-06-22}}
* {{cite journal |url=http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol77/iss5/4/ |title=Commercial Free and Open Source Software: Knowledge Production, Hybrid Appropriability, and Patents |work=Fordham Law Review |author=Vetter, G. |volume=77 |number=5 |pages=2087-2141 |date=2009}}
* {{cite journal |last=Vetter |first=G. |date=2009 |title=Commercial Free and Open Source Software: Knowledge Production, Hybrid Appropriability, and Patents |work=Fordham Law Review |volume=77 |number=5 |pages=2087-2141 |url=http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol77/iss5/4}}
* {{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=78SLSiWqy14C&pg=PA4 |title=The Success of Open Source |author=Weber, Steve |publisher=Harvard University Press |location=Cambridge, MA |year=2009 |pages=320 |isbn=9780674044999}}
* {{cite web |last=Wheeler |first=David A. |authorlink=David A. Wheeler |title=Why Open Source Software / Free Software (OSS/FS, FLOSS, or FOSS)? Look at the Numbers! |work=DWheeler.com |date=May 8, 2014  |url=http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html |accessdate=2015-06-22}}
* {{cite web |url=http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html |title=Why Open Source Software / Free Software (OSS/FS, FLOSS, or FOSS)? Look at the Numbers! |author=Wheeler, David A. |work=DWheeler.com |date=18 July 2015}}


== External links ==
== External links ==
Line 139: Line 72:


<!---Place all category tags here-->
<!---Place all category tags here-->
[[Category:Software and hardware terms]]

Latest revision as of 14:36, 20 September 2022

Free and open-source software logo (2009).svg

Free and open-source software (FOSS) is computer software that can be classified as a union of two software development models: free software and open-source software. First, anyone is licensed to freely use, copy, study, and change the software in any way. Second, the source code is openly shared so that people are encouraged to voluntarily improve the design of the software.[1] In contrast, proprietary software is under restrictive copyright, and the source code is usually hidden from users.

Despite similarities in their development models, both "free software" and "open-source software" feature differing cultures and philosophies.[2] "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'".[1] while focusing on the fundamental freedoms it gives to users. The "open-source" component, however, focuses on the perceived strengths of its peer-to-peer development model.[2] Despite these differences, the term "FOSS" can generally be used without particular bias towards either political approach.

The benefits of using FOSS potentially include decreasing software costs, increasing security and stability (especially in regard to malware), protecting privacy, and giving users more control over their software development.[3][4]

History

In the 1950s and '60s, it was common for computer users to have the source code for all programs they used as well as the permission and ability to modify it for their own use. Software, including source code, was commonly shared by individuals who used computers. Most companies had a business model based on hardware sales, and provided or bundled the software free of charge.[5][6] Organizations of users and suppliers such as SHARE and DECUS were formed to further facilitate the exchange of software and provide technical advice.[7]

By the late 1960s, the prevailing business model around software was beginning to change. A growing and evolving software industry was competing with hardware manufacturers' bundled software products; rather than funding software development from hardware revenue, these new companies were selling software directly. Leased machines required software support while providing no revenue for software, and some customers able to better meet their own needs did not want the costs of software bundled with their hardware costs. In United States vs. IBM, filed January 17, 1969, the government charged that bundled software was anticompetitive.[8][7]

By the 1970s and early 1980s, pure software companies were fully developed, with some in the industry beginning to use technical measures (such as only distributing 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. This idea that the underlying code in software was something to protect was further cemented in 1980, when copyright law was extended to computer programs in the United States[9] — previously, computer programs could only be considered ideas, procedures, methods, systems, and processes, which were not copyrightable.[10][11]

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.[12] 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 and went on to promote concepts such as "free software" and "copyleft" licensing.[13]

Stallman's efforts would eventually go on to influence other programmers. Linus Torvalds released the Linux kernel in 1991. Though Linux was not initially released under a free or open-source software license, Torvalds re-licensed the project under the GNU General Public License with version 0.12 in February 1992.[14] Much like Unix, Torvalds' kernel attracted the attention of volunteer programmers.[15][16] Other open-source projects that started or picked up speed during the early to mid-'90s include FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and Apache.

In 1997, Eric Raymond published The Cathedral and the Bazaar, a reflective analysis of the hacker community and free software principles, comparing commercial (cathedral) and dispersed (bazaar) software development. A roundtable meeting of Linux community members and Raymond resulted in the creation of an "open source" definition and adoption of its ideal; the original announcement of what became known as The Open Source Definition was made on February 9, 1998 on Slashdot[17] and elsewhere. The paper and associated community meetings received significant attention afterwards, with Raymond and programmer Bruce Perens starting the Open Source Initiative. Shortly before that, Netscape Communications Corporation announced it would be working towards releasing their popular Netscape Communicator Internet suite — today known as Mozilla Firefox and Thunderbird — as free and open-source software.[18][19]

It didn't take long for the free and open source buzz to catch on. One of the first known public uses of the free open-source software concept (outside Raymond and Netscape Communications) was in a Usenet posting on March 19, 1998 advertising the free open-source KLyX word processing app, a little more than a month after the term open source itself was coined.[20] However, 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. Microsoft executive Jim Allchin 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."[21]

Despite this sentiment and the role FOSS has historically played outside the mainstream of software development and business IT, the gradual adoption of open-source software in the business world began to take shape. In August 2005, Oracle president Charles Phillips spoke at the LinuxWorld trade show, reporting that "open source experienced 32 percent unit growth and 31 percent revenue growth in 2004 as it began to move more deeply into the data center."[22] Companies such as IBM also began to integrate Linux and other open-source solutions into their attempts to better support business-class customers.[22] Additionally, companies large and small begun to develop official open-source presences on the internet. As corporate philosophies began to shift, companies like IBM, Oracle, Google, and State Farm started to command a more serious public stake in the competitive open-source market.[23]

Alternative terms for FOSS

Much ado has been made over the past few decades about the labels applied to software that does not require payment to use and is open to investigation and modification by the user. Computer scientists such as Richard Stallman[24], Bruce Perens[25], David Wheeler[26], and Björn Schießle[27] have all published their thoughts on what the most apt terminology should be. Aside from FOSS, the following are the most common terms that have been used.

Free software

Richard Stallman's Free Software Definition, adopted by the Free Software Foundation (FSF), defines free software as a matter of freedom or liberty, not price. More specifically, he places the following stipulations on free software:

A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms:

  • 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 your neighbor (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.[1]

The earliest known publication of the definition of his free software idea was in the February 1986 edition of the FSF's now-discontinued GNU's Bulletin publication.[28] The canonical source for the document is in the philosophy section of the GNU Project website and is published in 40 different languages.[1]

The term "free software" is essentially the predecessor of "open source," which was brought to the public conscious by Eric Raymond's The Cathedral and the Bazaar in late 1997 and early 1998. In his noted revisions, Raymond documented "I changed 'free software' to 'open source'" on February 9, 1998[18], the same day the open source definition was publicly announced.[17]

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 programmer and free software activist Bruce Perens.[29][30] Perens did not base his writing on the four freedoms of free software from the Free Software Foundation, which were only later available on the web. Perens eventually left the OSI in 1999, a year after co-founding it. In an email to the Debian developers mailing list explaining his decision, he stated that though "most hackers know that Free Software and Open Source are just two words for the same thing", the success of "open source" as a marketing term had "de-emphasized the importance of the freedoms involved in Free Software."; he added, "It's time for us to fix that." He also stated his regret that OSI co-founder Eric Raymond "seem[ed] to be losing his free software focus."[25]

FLOSS

The term "FLOSS" (free/libre and open-source software) was coined in 2001 by Rishab Aiyer Ghosh, Gregorio Robles, and other members of the Infonomics FLOSS team for a European Commission-funded project on the open source/free software (OS/FS) phenomena.[2][31][32]

The term "FLOSS" aims to avoid taking sides in the debate over whether it was better to say "free software" or to say "open-source software". Proponents of the term point out that parts of the FLOSS acronym can be translated into other languages, with for example the "F" representing "free" (English) or "frei" (German), and the '"L" representing "libre" (Spanish or French), "livre" (Portuguese), or "libero" (Italian), "liber" (Romanian), and so on. However, this term is not often used in official non-English documents since the words in these languages don't have the same ambiguity as "free" does in English (either as "without cost" or as "freedom").[4][24]

See also

Further reading


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
Wikibooks has a book on the topic of: FOSS Open Standards

Notes

This article reuses some content from the Wikipedia article.

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 "What is free software?". GNU.org. Free Software Foundation, Inc. 1 January 2016. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html. Retrieved 13 January 2016. 
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Feller, Joseph; Fitzgerald, Brian; Hissam, Scott A.; Lakhani, Karim R. (2005). Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp. 538. ISBN 9780262062466. https://books.google.com/books?id=C0Z30r8qdpcC. Retrieved 13 January 2016. 
  3. ↑ Claburn, Thomas (17 January 2007). "Study Finds Open Source Benefits Business". InformationWeek (CMP Media, LLC). http://www.informationweek.com/study-finds-open-source-benefits-business-/d/d-id/1050799?. Retrieved 13 January 2016. 
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Wheeler, David A. (18 July 2015). "Why Open Source Software / Free Software (OSS/FS, FLOSS, or FOSS)? Look at the Numbers!". DWheeler.com. http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html. Retrieved 13 January 2016. 
  5. ↑ Bainbridge, William S., ed. (2004). Berkshire Encyclopedia of Human-computer Interaction. Barrington, MA: Berkshire Publishing Group. pp. 958. ISBN 9780974309125. https://books.google.com/books?id=568u_k1R4lUC&pg=PA532. Retrieved 13 January 2016. 
  6. ↑ Rost, Johann; Glass, Robert L. (2011). The Dark Side of Software Engineering: Evil on Computing Projects. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 316. ISBN 9780470922873. https://books.google.com/books?id=f_FyOg5XW_IC&pg=PT202. Retrieved 13 January 2016. 
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Jones, Capers (2013). The Technical and Social History of Software Engineering. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison-Wesley. pp. 496. ISBN 9780133365894. https://books.google.com/books?id=_H8lAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA87. Retrieved 13 January 2016. 
  8. ↑ Fisher, Franklin M.; McKie, James W.; Mancke, Richard B. (1983). IBM and the U.S. Data Processing Industry: An Economic History. Praeger. ISBN 9780030630590. https://books.google.com/books?id=ZI-1AAAAIAAJ. 
  9. ↑ "Public Law 96-517" (PDF). National Institutes of Health. 12 December 1980. https://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/PL96-517.pdf. Retrieved 13 January 2016. 
  10. ↑ "Copyright Overview". Copyright Basics. Purdue University. 2009. https://www.lib.purdue.edu/uco/CopyrightBasics/basics.html. Retrieved 13 January 2016. 
  11. ↑ Weber, Steve (2009). The Success of Open Source. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. pp. 320. ISBN 9780674044999. https://books.google.com/books?id=78SLSiWqy14C&pg=PA4. Retrieved 13 January 2016. 
  12. ↑ Williams, Sam (2002). Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman's Crusade for Free Software. Sabastopol, CA: O'Reilly and Associates. pp. 240. ISBN 9781449323363. https://books.google.com/books?id=IELrzjhGFDQC. 
  13. ↑ "The GNU Manifesto". GNU.org. Free Software Foundation, Inc. 2 June 2015. http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.en.html. Retrieved 13 January 2016. 
  14. ↑ Torvalds, Linus (February 1992). "Release notes for Linux v0.12". The Linux Kernel Archive. Linux Kernel Organization, Inc. https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/Historic/old-versions/RELNOTES-0.12. Retrieved 13 January 2016. 
  15. ↑ Larkin, Nate (2007). Samson and the Pirate Monks: Calling Men to Authentic Brotherhood. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson. pp. 224. ISBN 9781418577698. https://books.google.com/books?id=bh6bmGYcCxwC&pg=PA197. Retrieved 13 January 2016. 
  16. ↑ Egan, David; Zikopoulous, Paul (2000). DBAs Guide to Databases On Linux. Rockland, MA: Syngress Media, Inc. pp. 485. ISBN 9780080530291. https://books.google.com/books?id=TszUjeyeo8cC&pg=PA2. Retrieved 13 January 2016. 
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 "Free Software's New Name". Slashdot. SlashdotMedia. 9 February 1998. http://news.slashdot.org/story/98/02/09/213900/free-softwares-new-name. Retrieved 14 January 2016. 
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 Raymond, Eric S. (3 October 2005). "The Cathedral and the Bazaar". First Monday (Special issue #2). doi:10.5210/fm.v0i0.1472. http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1472/1387. Retrieved 13 January 2016. 
  19. ↑ Muffatto, Moreno (2006). Open Source: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Imperial College Press. pp. 260. ISBN 9781908979803. https://books.google.com/books?id=cGW7CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA14. Retrieved 14 January 2016. 
  20. ↑ Klaus; Niepraschk, Rolf (19 March 1998). "fwd: announce: klyx -- the kde document processor". The Usenet Archive. http://www.theusenetarchive.com/usenet-message-de-comp-text-tex-comp-text-tex-fwd-announce-kl-27758785.htm. Retrieved 13 January 2016. 
  21. ↑ Charny, Ben (02 January 2002). "Microsoft Raps Open-Source Approach". CNET (CBS Interactive Inc). http://www.cnet.com/news/microsoft-raps-open-source-approach/. Retrieved 14 January 2016. 
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 Hatlestad, Luc (August 9, 2005). "LinuxWorld Showcases Open-Source Growth, Expansion". InformationWeek (CMP Media, LLC). Archived from the original on 2007-11-25. http://www.webcitation.org/5Tchd69ij. Retrieved 2007-11-25. 
  23. ↑ 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. 
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 Stallman, Richard (9 November 2015). "FLOSS and FOSS". GNU.org. Free Software Foundation, Inc. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html. Retrieved 14 January 2016. 
  25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 Perens, Bruce (17 February 1999). "It's Time to Talk About Free Software Again". lists.debian.org. Software in the Public Interest, Inc. https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/02/msg01641.html. Retrieved 14 January 2016. 
  26. ↑ Wheeler, David A. (2015). "Open Source Software / Free Software (OSS/FS or FLOSS) References". DWheeler.com. http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_refs.html. Retrieved 14 January 2016. 
  27. ↑ Schießle, Björn (11 May 2012). "Free Software, Open Source, FOSS, FLOSS – Same same but different". blog.schiessle.org. https://blog.schiessle.org/2012/05/11/free-software-open-source-foss-floss-same-same-but-different/. Retrieved 14 January 2016. 
  28. ↑ Stallman, Richard M. (February 1986). "What is the Free Software Foundation?". GNU's Bulletin 1 (1): 8–9. https://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull1.txt. Retrieved 14 January 2016. 
  29. ↑ Perens, Bruce (1999). "The Open Source Definition". Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution. O'Reilly Media. ISBN 1565925823. http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/opensources/book/perens.html. 
  30. ↑ "The Open Source Definition". Open Source Initiative. 22 March 2007. http://opensource.org/docs/osd. Retrieved 14 January 2016. 
  31. ↑ Berlecon Research (June 2002). "Free/Libre and Open Source Software: Survey and Study". European Commission. Archived from the original on 15 December 2002. https://web.archive.org/web/20021215064824/http://floss.infonomics.nl/outline.htm. Retrieved 14 January 2016. 
  32. ↑ Herbst, Claudia (2008). Sexing Code: Subversion, Theory and Representation. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN 9781847184795. https://books.google.com/books?id=QV8ZBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA26. Retrieved 14 January 2016. 
Retrieved from "https://www.limswiki.org/index.php?title=Free_and_open-source_software&oldid=49421"