Talk:Open-source model/Archive 1

message: IMO ethics is an importent aspect of open source. The page open source ethics could use a bit of cleanup, and could then be taken into open source as a section. Takers?Martijn Hoekstra 19:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Open Source ethics 

message: I think Open Source can define both private and public
Why should everything be open to a detriment of privacy rights? Open doesn't mean breaking the laws of Physics either. Open Source is a real balance though that clearly defines a product. The source is clearly defined privately to where it can be defended by the propriator. Without that we wouldn't know the 'source' of what's 'open' and would cease to exist as a real substance.
I don't understand the point of this comment. Closed source software can still implement an open system, for example, and open and closed source implementations of an open system can coexist, but are you trying to expand open source to include source that isn't open? I don't get it. -- PdS
It depends on who wants to partake The keyword here is access If I want to access an Open Source somewhere weather it is a fountain spring of water or oil coming out of the ground or software data then I can do so in the most uninhibited timely fashion possible. If I don't then it remains private so it stays efficient where I am not forced to use it for the wrong purposes. I just see it as a more efficient trust between mankind or Love. - anon1
:Your right, open source doesn't mean everything has to be transparent. It factors down to the philosophy of collaboration and the methodology of accessibility. — Dzonatas 20:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's wrong with a [[Secret Sauce]] though? Reasonable privacy rights 

message: I would love to see a section with different open source licenses (GNU plublic, Debian, BSD) and their differences. Martijn Hoekstra 19:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See open-source licenses. — Dzonatas 19:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Licences

message: 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. 131.183.81.100 22:18, 26 April 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: (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.
Daniel Quinlan 22:35, 26 July 2003 (UTC)

text: That's because it's used without the hyphen as a noun and with it as an adjective. --Shallot 13:51, 2 January 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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? Kyk 21:15, 3 January 2004 (UTC)

text: The 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. -- Wapcaplet 22:06, 3 January 2004 (UTC)

text: Read above, the sections starting with 131.183.81.100 22:18, 26 April 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  how to use hyphens 

message: 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.  Bevo 02:40, 20 October 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we're trying all that hard.  Let me try something in the article, let me know what you think.  Daniel Quinlan 03:10, 20 October 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like it now a whole lot better. Bevo 03:22, 20 October 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stallman 

message: 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)? Kyk 06:41, 2 January 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Salsa Shark 06:47, 2 January 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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? Kyk 06:51, 2 January 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Salsa Shark 07:02, 2 January 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  repositories 

message: 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). -- Wapcaplet 18:14, 20 December 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.
----
Software and music, etc. aren't sold. You buy the CD or the paper of the book but not their content . You mostly get a licence to use it but property rights are still retained by the owner (author, etc.). This is what IP deals with. Considering the Net duplication costs can be nearly zero or at least so low that it does not matter any more. -- Anonymous
----
* "A 10% markup on a physical object is reasonable." Did you mean profit or markup? The standard markup when my grandfather ran an hardware store was 100% in the 40's. I believe this is still the retail standard. When you subtract all the costs (labor, building, taxes, law suits, utilities, interest, furniture,...) your are lucky to make 10% profit. I do not have a MBA, just practice experience, and so take this with a grain of salt Jimwelch 16:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication cost 

message: 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. 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. Rhobite 21:37, 7 January 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 Stirling Newberry 22:23, 7 January 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Rhobite 22:56, 7 January 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia=perfect example 

message: 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. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:21, 26 March 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it categorically doesn't belong in this article.  It belongs in open content.  The SourceForge test is 100% fine for this article.  Daniel Quinlan 21:55, 26 March 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open Gaming License 

message: 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! Talk | Work</span> 02:55, 28 April 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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! Talk | Work</span> 15:13, 28 April 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV tag

message: 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! Talk | Work</span> 18:10, 5 June 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As no one seem to disagree with you I've taken away the cleanup-tag. Let's celebrate and continue to improve the article! David Björklund 22:39, 19 June 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to remove Cleanup tag?

message: 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? Mr. Ballard 02:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout & Content 

message: does anyone know when is the logo inargurated? Xah Lee 09:17, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  OpenSource logo 

message: :For more information, see: User:Ambush Commander/LinkFix dump
There aren't that many links that are awry in this article, but there are a whole lot of them to go through. Someone fixing them would be nice. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 17:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  LinkFix Dump 

message: I'd like to stress again (again) that the source code does not need to be publicly accessible in open source software. Under GPL, for example, the source code only needs to be offered with the software to the recipient of that software and to no one else. The source code typically is publicly accessible, which is culturally important, but not a strict part of open source.
Mr. Ballard, please stop reverting the article to say otherwise. If you don't understand, see the The Desert Island test and The Dissident test in Debian Free Software Guidelines for examples of how open source software (or free software) does not need to be publicly accessible. The same applies to other open source and open content licenses.
If you wish to make improvements to the article, work with what is there and improve it. Do not try to bulldoze it down for when you're ready to work on it.
Open source in the sense of 'open source intelligence' is the only sense where this does not apply.
—Pengo 01:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Open source" does not mean "Publicly Accesible" 

message: How exactly is the failure of the title to use a lowercase "open source" a technical limitation?  It isn't a word that's always spelled starting with a lowercase letter, like "eBay". Ken Arromdee 21:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed -- tag removed ---- Mr. Ballard 22:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps, but it is open source, and without being sure people notice this they will make assumptions based on Open Source, which is the term used by the OSI to describe their counter to the FSF's Free Software.  I'll reremove it based on your opinions though I feel that I'll have to expand the article to mention the difference between Open and open.  Janizary 17:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no trademark on "open source" or "Open Source". There is no difference between the words. ---- Mr. Ballard 22:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The lack of trademark is irrelevant, the OSI calls what they like "Open Source", while open source is a broader term.  One is a specific term used by a specific organisation while the other has a more inclusive meaning.  I call that a difference.  Janizary 22:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical limitation tag 

message: Come on, it's been over 4 years that this project has used the Gnu/Linux operationg system (which is free software), and we can't even apply NPOV to describing the difference betwee free software and open source software?
Forget about which philosophy is "right". Just tell us readers what the differences are between them!
Stallman and his gang want credit for what the did. Whether you think the deserve it or not, it's what they want. So just say that RMS claims to be the granddaddy of sharable software and that he says that his movement did most or nearly all of the work that made it possible for Torvalds to develop Linux.
And anyone else who claims anything different can get their say, too. Uncle Ed 21:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Really people, this shouldn't be that hard.  If you really feel you are right, then just tell the straight facts and let the reader make up their mind.   If you're so right, they'll obviously agree with you. --Lewk_of_Serthic 21:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually RMS created the whole thing, he is the mastermind behind it all. Frap 15:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This article sucks

message: Should this page link to Open content?
If it does, please link to it! Frap 15:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open content 

message: Should this article contain any dialogue regarding the criticisms of the Open Source concept? One example that springs to mind is Blender; the interface dictated that it was commercially unsuccesful, however, after being expanded upon by open-source development, the resultant software is still plagued by poor interface design that frustrates users, making it difficult to use the powerful software behind the interface. 
Other problems worth noting could be the lack of documentation surrounding active development that makes it difficult to utilize a product to its full potential.
Perhaps this has already been mentioned, or there is a better forum for bringing it up; I myself am not well-versed or articulate enough to express a significant or valuable dialogue on the topic - I am merely aware that such criticisms exist and perhaps should be acknowledged. - 24.67.20.3
Sounds more like an open-source software related issue. — Dzonatas 05:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms of Open Source 

message: Can anyone point me to where the discussion which lead to "open-source software" being split into a seperate article took place?  I've looked a few times, but I can't find it.  Thanks. Gronky 16:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you propose? The conversation is above, in and about the intro paragraph and divisions of open source. — Dzonatas 20:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying that.  That's a surprisingly sparse conversation.  The first use of the word "split" on this page is in a sentence "I split the article".  I'm not convinced the split was a good idea.  I'm not proposing anything, but I was just hoping to read what convinced others that it was a good idea. Gronky 12:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the discussion about splitting OS and OSS articles? 

message: "Regarded by some", "was chosen" (by some unspecified group), "many consider" and "many claim", and some critics do something too, etc. Badly needs at least a few attributions and references and suchlike. NicM 08:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For organizations, how about representatives of the organizations putting the point of view, and official statements from the organization? It is fine to contrast them: "X says A, but in contrast, Y asserts B". If people really use and discuss this, there will be magazine articles and comments and opinion pieces about it. "There are" is no better, it is still completely unsourced and therefore unverifiable. NicM 23:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see your point about the representatives. That idea fits within the body while the opener above summarizes it. Before this article was split up, it did contain more of those views. I suggested to merge some of it back in. Also, a quick search on google for "open source" and either "pragmatic" or "philosphical" gives over 14 million hits each. There is quite of bit of talk about it, so it is not completely unsourced. The expressions themselves are verifiable, but the quantifiers need to be sourced. I found the comparisons based on the facts that there are many software developers that work with open-source software even if those developers don't follow the philosophy (i.e. they just restrict themselves to the license). Then there are those that just use open-source products. Since the split, this article now includes more details then just software. What do you propose? — Dzonatas 16:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose that the article should be restructured so that every point of view is presented neutrally and preferably attributed to at least one organization or individual, per WP:WEASEL. Verifiable does not mean "the reader can type it into google" it means there are sources listed in the article and each viewpoint has an attribution or explanation of who says it and where it comes from. With 14 million google hits, there should be absolutely no problem finding sources for any viewpoint you care to name. I know this subject is widely discussed on the internet, so there must be tons and tons of material to work with... what about a few Perens or ESR quotes? or from some of the Debian guys? what about Microsoft, what have they said about open source philosophy? I bet they spend a lot of time badmouthing it and saying it is anti-commercial in spirit. IBM and Sun  and Apple have all sponsered OSS in one way or another, what did their CEOs say when they made the announcement and their personnel in interviews? All this weasel "often considered" stuff can be fixed easily enough by finding a reputable source which says that and using it, "noted commentator Bob Bobson, writing in Bob's Monthly Magazine, described this event as "the birth of the open source movement."" NicM 17:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't say I wanted to remove content. All I say is that the article needs sources, it does not have them, and that sources on this subject are not hard to find. It doesn't matter what the article is about, how diverse its subject, and how many other articles there are, this one still lacks sources and is full of weasel words. Take a look at WP:CITE, WP:WEASEL and WP:V, and notice how they don't apply to the article. All you need to do is cite sources for all the assertions in the article, so that we all know the author wasn't just making it up, and attribute the points of view to at least one party, so we know the author isn't just trying to make it look like "everyone" shares his POV. NicM 12:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad that you don't want to remove content, as that was misunderstood. Yes, let's add the sources. — Dzonatas 01:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasels and weasels and weasels, oh my 

message: A tag was placed on the page for clean-up. A specific reason, other then above about sources, is not stated. Any comments on this? — Dzonatas 01:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would be nice to know what specifically needed to be cleaned. -- Joebeone (Talk) 17:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up 

message: Strange it is.  THat seems more like a candidate for a disambiguation page than the main article.  Midgley 22:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have yet to study what makes it "open source." I do agree with you on the dab. — Dzonatas 05:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at it. There is validity to its claim as open source. It's not just an advertisment scheme. — Dzonatas 19:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yoga? 

message: Was the citation from "Back to the future: open source everything" in Computerworld really notable? There only seemed to be one part that was really clearly cited, and it was about a template rather than the main article. — Dzonatas 05:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template cited? 

message: With the recent changes to the history section, I decided to hold back on a revert to remove its backward direction. The information added is more useful at Open source software where it can be neutrally written at greater length. Details of software related issues should not be on this page; however, software did play a big role, so it is fine to correlate the actions on this page in regard to "open source." The reason why these pages were split is because of the neutralitt of "open source" itself is affected by OSS. For example, the other non-software issues were not being addressed, or were subjected to constant edits. — Dzonatas 02:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History