Talk:The Open Source Definition

message: The bulk of this article consists of a copy of the open source definition available at http://opensource.org/docs/definition_plain.html
I do not see any copyright statement on the OSI website. Particularly, there is no notice that the OSD has been released to the public domain, or under the GNU FDL or a similar license.
The document in question is derived from a document of the Debian distribution available at http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines . It contains the statement Other organizations may derive from and build on this document. Please give credit to the Debian project if you do. - Bruce Perens
The webpage at http://www.opensource.org/index.php contains this text, The contents of this website are licensed under the Open Software License 2.1 or Academic Free License 2.1 at the bottom of that page. - Bevo 16:39, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: License Must Be Technology-Neutral: no click-wrap licenses or other medium-specific ways of accepting the license must be required.
Should that say may rather than must?  The diffrence is subtle and I am not sure if it actually is saying what it means or not.  Anyone? Dalf | Talk 02:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Item ten and grammar 

message: probably should be taken into account here.  It is not so much a copyright issue, but one of having enough to write.  The text itself should be linked to (or put on Wikisource if you feel that strongly).  This may sound harsh, but if removing the source text turns the article into a stub, the article probably needs to be deleted and have its text merged into another article.  118.90.121.17 (talk) 11:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NOFULLTEXT]] 

message: Hi all,
According to the definition of Free software by FSF and Open source software by OSI, I realize that:
* 6th criteria of OSI meets freedom 0 of FSF 
* 2nd and 3rd criteria of OSI meet freedom 1 and 3 of FSF
* 1st criteria of OSI meets freedom 2 of FSF
So, IMHO, every open source software is free software, too. However, FSF states "nearly all open source software is free", it means "exist open source software is not free".
Any idea? If such software actually exists, please give examples and explain what is wrong with my idea.
Thanks!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.81.47.9 (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free software definition (FSF) vs Open source software definition(OSI) 

message: This article seems to say nothing about what the open source definition actually is (apart from the fact that it is "a document"). It tells me that it's different from certain other things, but that's not useful.
Mhkay (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  So what IS the open source definition? 

message: Please replace the content of the article above the categories with User:Buidhe paid/OSD. I rewrote and expanded the article based on independent sources. Buidhe paid (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I did made a few minor changes (such as avoiding the term "notably" in the lead per MOS:NOTABLY). Best, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: Summary of changes as a result of the Wiki99 project (before, after, diff):
*Removed large section copying from the official definition, instead wrote a summary and explanation of the criteria based on secondary sources
*Rewrote lead to fix the too-short tagged issue
*Previously the article was mostly based on the OSI website. Now, the article cites a variety of scholarly sources
*Rewrote reception section based on secondary sources, clarified that OSD is the most widely used open source definition
*Added section on process for designating OSD-compatible licenses
Further steps:
*With a bit of polishing this could be considered GA class
Buidhe paid (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki99 summary