Talk:Free and open-source software/Archive 2: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 04:20, 12 December 2022

Latest revision as of 17:44, 13 August 2025

(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)

Line 71:

After having read [http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-3-free-software-epistemics/debate/there-is-no-free-software/ this paper] by Christopher Kelty (the anthropologist of software) that happens to be a scientific publication published under a "public ___domain" licensing policy, I consider adding a paragraph "critique" (or whatever more appropriate term anyone may see fit) by basically extracting whole chunks of his article (namely paragraphs 13 to 16), as I believe it provides a sound account of why FOSS in the 2010s may be viewed as irreconciliable. Of course it would need work to achieve "encyclopedic tone" and NPOV, but I do believe that it is here a rare instance where it would be both relevant and not a copyvio to import a text instead of paraphrasing summarizing or even merely quoting it. Before I actually try to do it, I'm asking the opinion of anyone interested. --[[User:Alexandre Hocquet|Alexandre Hocquet]] ([[User talk:Alexandre Hocquet|talk]]) 23:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on [[Free and open-source software]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=799874465 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140716055445/https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/02/msg01641.html to https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/02/msg01641.html

*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.muenchen.de/rathaus/Stadtverwaltung/Direktorium/LiMux/Zahlen_Fakten/Projektstatus.html

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140927113622/http://ictau.ug/call-for-feedback-on-the-open-source-strategy-policy/ to http://ictau.ug/call-for-feedback-on-the-open-source-strategy-policy/

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718044718/http://mysql.com/news-and-events/sun-to-acquire-mysql.html to http://mysql.com/news-and-events/sun-to-acquire-mysql.html

*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.informationweek.com/windows/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196901596&subSection=Open+Source

*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=168600351

*Corrected formatting/usage for http://opensource.mit.edu/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 09:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

== not NPOV/original research ==

these statements are not NPOV and/or constitute original research:

<blockquote>By defying ownership regulations in the construction and use of information − a key area of contemporary growth − the Free/Open Source Software (FOSS) movement counters neoliberalism and privatization in general.[97]</blockquote>

<blockquote>By realizing the historical potential of an "economy of abundance" for the new digital world FOSS may lay down a plan for political resistance or show the way towards a potential transformation of capitalism.[97]</blockquote>

seems fine to attribute statements like this to third parties, but as written they look like statements of fact, when they are opinions/analysis that emerge from the page authors. They should either be referred to via quotations from third parties, or removed. there are other statements of this sort on this page that have similar problems. [[User:Mr H3vnu83987|Mr H3vnu83987]] ([[User talk:Mr H3vnu83987|talk]]) 13:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

== how is "Infringes on user's civil liberties and human rights" a drawback of FOSS to proprietary software? ==

this may be a problem with my understanding of english language, which is not my mother tongue. all the paragraphs in "drawback to proprietary software" describe disadvantages of FOSS compared to proprietary software.

Security and user-support, Hardware and software compatibility, Bugs and missing features, Less guarantees of development, Missing applications, Technical skills and user-friendliness all list things where FOSS is at a disadvantage.

as a result, it looks like the phrase "Infringes on user's civil liberties and human rights" is also talking about a disadvantage of FOSS compared to proprietary software, as in "FOSS would infringe on users rights" whereas proprietary software would not. a careful reading of that paragraph makes clear that this is not the case. the paragraph is instead talking about a disadvantage of proprietary software, and an advantage of FOSS.

given that all other paragraphs in this section are about FOSS disadvantages, i feel that this paragraph about human rights is better placed in the section above as an advantage of FOSS.

i found this issue because i had asked my team to research FOSS so they could learn about it, and when i asked them "what are the disadvantages of FOSS" they came back with the answer that FOSS infringes on human rights. [[Special:Contributions/61.187.123.141|61.187.123.141]] ([[User talk:61.187.123.141|talk]]) 06:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

:I've removed the contradictory section. The editor who put it in probably misinterpreted the "Drawbacks '''to''' proprietary software" section as "Drawbacks '''of''' proprietary software". In any case, the content is already covered at {{sectionlink|Free and open-source software|Personal control, customizability and freedom}}. Thanks for bringing up this issue! —&nbsp;'''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 16:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

== Major contradiction between GPL'd software being linked here as FOSS and the opening sentence ==

"Free and open-source software (FOSS) is software that is both free software and open-source software[a] where anyone is freely licensed to use, copy, study, and change the software in any way" -- The GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) does not freely allow one to use the software in any way, as it prohibits not only using it in proprietary software, but prohibits any changes or additions you make from being used in proprietary software. So it even prohibits your changes from "being used in any way."

There are GNU GPL'd pieces of software all over Wikipedia that are linked to this article in their opening sentence. They should either all be removed as being "free and open source," or this article should be modified to state that FOSS can cover both "free in any way," and, "not free in every way" licenses. [[Special:Contributions/2601:18B:8200:3AE:5170:1738:CC62:F931|2601:18B:8200:3AE:5170:1738:CC62:F931]] ([[User talk:2601:18B:8200:3AE:5170:1738:CC62:F931|talk]]) 10:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

: FOSS has a definition. If the software that links to this page is saying they are FOSS and they are not, then the edits need to go into those articles, not this one. [[User:GimliDotNet|GimliDotNet]] ([[User talk:GimliDotNet|talk]]) 12:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

: But Wikipedia's definition is sourced back to the GNU Project, which does not actually support that "in any way" includes using it in proprietary software. The site referenced doesn't even use the words "in any way" (though they do use "for any purpose") but as this use is meta (it is not a use of the output of the program but instead wraps the software up in a conceptual package and uses that) this purpose isn't necessarily being included by the reference source. So it isn't necessarily defined by the absolutes of |in any way| or |for any purpose|; and so, for example, banning its use in murder may not conflict with it being "free." The wording of the definition as it stands right now reads as an absolute, though; so we have, "If it isn't permissible to use it in murder it is not Free and Open Source Software." So perhaps it needs to be more accurately defined to include what freedoms can be disallowed while still being considered, "Free." Basically, the underlying issue is the philosophical one of: "An absolute 'free' is paradoxical, for it must contain the freedom to contradict itself." [[Special:Contributions/2601:18B:8200:3AE:7936:B754:B35A:FB0F|2601:18B:8200:3AE:7936:B754:B35A:FB0F]] ([[User talk:2601:18B:8200:3AE:7936:B754:B35A:FB0F|talk]]) 02:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==

[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Lawrence_Tech_University/INT_7213_Emerging_Technologies_(Fall_2016)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:Naga Sravani Dasari|Naga Sravani Dasari]], [[User:Nehanalla9|Nehanalla9]], [[User:Lunchmeat30|Lunchmeat30]].

{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 21:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)}}