Talk:Closed source software

message: I've recreated this article, with the intention of removing the POV definition, due to the lack of any article on the topic given Proprietary software having long since become a FOSS advocating article. I'd like to address some of the issues brought up in the merge talks to show reasoning for choosing this article name for the concept. I'll go through each comment in the merge one by one and try to counter them.
*Gronky's opening statement - No longer applies, Proprietary software has long been about the negative term, and now features a definition to match.
*Haakon's agreement - Does not apply to the current meaning. I agree with the merging of simiarly named article, however, the possibility of making that article neutral and featuring all points was resisted by both sides. By the advocates, due to a want to use the term because of what they feel about the meaning, with the sole claim that it's numbers make it a good name, despite equal representation for the opposing view. By the closed source, and general users with specific advocation, due to the fact that the definition "proprietary software" has not found widespread meaning as "lock in", and is infact in my experience (as an expert witness in British courts) used to mean specifically proprietary, even for open source software (Cathedral, as oposed to Bazaar).
*Rbarreira's disagreement - Agree completely, even makes light of a classic case of hypocrisy I wasn't aware of, in which advocates admitted the general definition allows open source to be proprietary if you're not trying to push Richard Stallman's use of the term.
**64.222.104.90's comment - Incorrect, "Proprietary software" (the negative lock-in term) is a subclass of closed source and "Proprietary software" that is to say, software that is proprietary has no relation either way.
**Gronky's comment - Admits the possibility of open source proprietary software, but claims such facts to be irrelevant data and therefore nothing todo with the merge, purely because the facts didn't feature. 
*cb43569's no merge - Correct comment about proprietary != closed, however I disagree that we should take the term literally, as the correct amalgamation "proprietary software" isn't encylopedicly unique.
**Gronky's comment - Make's reference to the adoption of the term "closed source" as if the terms hadn't been, or couldn't be combined, given the fact that they're actually dictionary correct as a combination. Fair enough comments, however just because the term was adopted as a slogan, is of no relevance, this article is now intended to end previous Wikipedian habits at creating articles on labels instead of topics. The general term "closed source" still makes perfect semantic sense and they've never been the exact same thing... the OSI and FSF have long since taken each term it's own way as specific sub-categories of all closed source software.
*Ed Avis' merge - I have to claim ignorance of knowledge within FOSS advoacy, but the term closed source had reached my corporate life in the 90's, so how we can claim lack of adoption I don't know. As for explicit definition, once again, these articles aren't meant to specifically highlight the OSI or FSF defintions, and infact, no serious topic can be perfectly defined by a single source. Usage of a term, and multiple sources all inflence percieved and actual definitions, but an actual writte dfnition from a single biased source is not something we want anyway, so I'm glad it is still a disputed topic, and therefore more of a "topic" han the term proprietary software, which is but a term.
*Lovelac7's merge - It is a sad day for developers choosing to use the term that closed does have some natural negativety, however, given the extreme, intentional and semantically incorrect negativety in both the meaning and usage of "proprietary software" I don't see the problem. It is an accepted general name for the topic, used regulary to mean just not open source, with none of the specific points implied, and also, lesser used definitions of closed make perfect semantic sense (i.e. the usae in the sentence "My door's are closed", in the non-physical sense.)
The discussion went on to mention all the same points I feel I have given fair view points in oppition to. Are there any other objections? - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Reversion 

message: I think this section of the article is terrbile and I think it should be removed or altered:
Of course, the source code for almost all software is available to someone, somewhere under some conditions or for some price so this interpretation would mean that there is practically no such thing as closed source software. For example, the source code to Microsoft Windows is available by simply buying a controlling interest in Microsoft.
So... that's like saying "there are no secrets" - because even most classified documents (CIA/NSA) were written/read by someone. (that's just silly!) I think this is really stretching the definition of open source a lot, especially the part "the source code to Microsoft Windows is available by simply buying a controlling interest in Microsoft." <-- This is just terrible and I can't even describe properly how terribly it is... SF007 (talk)
:Removed. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool --- SF007 (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious mistake 

message: This page seems to provide more specificity to the term "closed-source software" then could ever be cited.  For instance, the page seems to introduce commentary on the term:
: The phrase "closed source", in relation to the open source definition, is ambiguous because it implies licensing where the source code to a program is unavailable. However, if taken as being an antonym to open source, it refers to software that does not meet the Open Source Definition, which is a subtly different meaning.
"Ambiguous", according to who?
And this is not even accurate:
: Microsoft's Shared source is an example of licensing where the source code is made available but not under an open-source license. If Closed source is interpreted as referring to software that does not meet the Open Source Definition, then Shared source is an example of Closed source licensing. However, if it is interpreted as simply referring to programs where the source code is not available; this isn't the case.
Some Shared Source licenses do meet the Open Source definition and the free software definition. --Ashawley (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I have removed that section. SF007 (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: This article is currently little more than a dictionary definition, and a dubious one at that. As there does not appear to be reliable evidence that the term "closed source software" is primarily understood to mean something different from "proprietary software", this article is little more than some editor's personal interpretation. I'd appreciate for those editors involved in keeping it that way to provide an update on precisely what they think this article is for and where it's heading. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Go read the definition of proprietary software. I don't think I could even stretch the wording of this article to come to a slightly similar definition to what is now, instead of a compromise, simply a series of contradictary definitions trying to find a half-way ground. Proprietary software, is software that is owned, it can be closed source, and the term is often used to refer to closed-source in certain groups, but the definition of what they are refering to will be treated on this article, while the actual definition and incorrect usage of that definition will be handled there. The reason this article was reformed was becuase of the contradictory defintion at proprietary software, which has left no article on closed source software. Yes there is little content here, as there is on many articles, that doesn't suddenly remove the terminology from existence, Wikipedia is here to document not to promote as it often attempts. This article could also do very well from salvaging what is now redundant content from proprietary software which served the archaic time when we based our Topics upon Terminology as promoted by the most fanatical of Open Source advocates. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 08:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This article should have been deleted long ago. It has not been improved in many years. It's 100% original research. Just delete it.--Lester 23:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current status of this article 

message: * Don't delete this article, since there is still a big difference between closed source and proprietary software.
There is a good cause to use only copyright for proprietary software. And still include the source code in the package.
I believe a wider perspective would be nice for this article.
* There are several risks with closed source software, as described in this article from Alan Cox:
The risks of closed source.
* The view of Professor Dan Bernstein is also quite interesting, where he points out that the particular "closed source software" vending company Microsoft gives doubtable licence statements, that you may not make copies or alter the software. Where this right is guaranteed in the US as well as in The European Communion: 
Software user's rights.
* There is also a discussable issue concerning the protection of copyright in closed source software: It is very easy to hide copyrighted pieces of source code in a binary file. It is fairly impossible to verify if closed source software vendors don't violate copyright laws.
I think it would be a useful bonus for the article, but I don't embed it in the article yet since I am unsure how to do it properly.
Jringoot (talk) 12:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wider perspective