Talk:Open-source model

Active discussions
This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of January 19, 2008.
Stock post message.svg To-do list for Open-source model: edit·history·watch·refresh· Updated 2017-12-21

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

History of the term 2Edit

There is currently two sections both trying to take on the history of the term open source. One is called History, the other Society and culture. Both is mostly/all unsourced in the regards of any information which dates back before 1998 and thus the creation of the open source movement. I could do a free hand rewrite of it, but without sources it would be better to start with an open discussion first.

  • The History section starts with: "The concept of open source and the free sharing of technological information existed long before computers". But what the "concept of open source" is and how it differs from the "free sharing of technological information" is not described, just written as being different. It later says: "Open source on the Internet began when the Internet was relatively primitive". again unsourced, and very unclear if it actually describes the open source definition as described by the open source initiative.[1]
  • Society and culture section creates a term called "Open-source culture" and bases most of the section on that term and how the section describes it. Since the name of the term gives some decent amount of Google hits (206k), it would be nice to see some sources and historical description of it, but to my ability I could not find any. It also says that Open-source culture precedes the Free Software movement (1983), with "Sourcery Systems BBS were dedicated to providing source code to Public Domain, Shareware and Freeware programs". It would be nice to know when Sourcery Systems was used like this. Also, todays term of Shareware was created 1984, Freeware was trademarked, and history of freeware says: "term freeware was used often in the 1980s for programs released only as executables, with source code not available". The only part left would be public domain software, but that article does not mention this.

My first thought would be to rewrite History section to simply start talking about free sharing of technological information, and then let the term open-source be used after the events of 1998 has been described. For Society and culture section, the history of monetization of culture could be a good choice for subjects pre-1998, and open-source culture for post-1998. Belorn (talk) 07:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The OpenSource Movement did not start with the "availability" of the internet but with the introduction of the usenet news system and it's comp.sources hierarchy. This worked even over modem connections. For this reason, I have names like Rich $alz (note his own special spelling) and Larry Wall in mind and it is a pity that the names are not mentioned in the article. --Schily (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
if you are talking about pre-1998 then the term open source was not invented, and thus any movement would be under different name, and my guess under slightly different concept. Please provide source so one could try to piece together a better history section.Belorn (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The term open source movement was in use in the early 1980s already. I remember news articles from e.g. Larry Wall and Rich Salz. It was seen as a movement of liberty amd not political, so the term was not used as a figurehead. Finding the related articles again did not work - probably because of different google search filtering. --Schily (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
First rewrite of the first History section. The section is currently a bit long to be a summery of the History of free and open source software article. Other issues I would highlight is the relevance of the included pre-1998 subjects like cooking recipes and patents. If courses given at a restaurant would be provided with its recipe, then it would have some relevance to concept behind open source. As for the patent part, its a bit of a stretch. If the goal is to illustrated how historically it have been shown that sharing is bettering than owning, then I think the practices of early universities/libraries should be ideal. Should be good historical examples. It also reeks of WP:OR and the article trying to push a point to the reader. Belorn (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This is still a problem, added a "cleanup-merge" tag. -- Beland (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Re-creating Category:Open sourceEdit

There are a lot of articles in Category:Free software culture and documents which don't relate to free software at all. I'd like to re-create Category:Open source to house these and other related articles, and include subcategories like Category:Open content. This category was removed in 2006 after this discussion. – Pnm (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Please provide more details on why you think the old consensus from that discussion is wrong and in which way a Open source Category would differ from the current Free software culture and documents. Belorn (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The "Open source" category would include topics which are not about software, like open politics, open-source journalism, open design, and open content. Those topics don't belong directly in a free software category. On second thought though, instead of recreating Category:Open source I think a more concrete category title like Category:Open-source methodologies is better. Here's a mockup. – Pnm (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I think I see what you are trying to accomplish, but any category need to have a clear defined definition. To take a category on open source, it would have to follow the open source definition as by OSI. Looking around, I find the Category:libre as an example that has clear definition, although that one is lacking a source. So while there is nothing wrong with calling it Open-source methodologies, it would beg the question of what the exact definition of Open-source methodologies is. Belorn (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Heck, Category:Libre is essentially the category I want to build. I'll expand it a little bit and request a rename at Cfd. As far as a definition, this article's lead sentence works for me: "practices in production and development that promote free redistribution and access to the end product's source materials." It's been roughly stable since "source code" was removed in March 2010. Though synthy, it is clearly defined. –Pnm (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I requested a rename to Category:Open methodologies: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_7#Category:Libre – Pnm (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


The current list is quite long, goes against the WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and is also quite arbitrary in what is on it. If noone objects, I will prune the list, maybe do a summery like in the Free Software#Examples of free software. Including a list of best-known examples can be useful to the reader, but a very long list will not benefit the reader, and will only invite bad edits where someone want to add their favorite software/product/stuff to the list. Belorn (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Opening statementEdit

The current text that "In production and development, open source is a philosophy,[1][2] or pragmatic methodology[2] that promotes free redistribution and access to an end product's design and implementation details" is quite unsupported given that both cite 1 and 2 do not make any statement to support the claim that open source is either a philosophy or a pragmatic methodology. Source 1 (Ubuntu) states that open source is: collective power in action. The power of a worldwide community of highly skilled experts that build, share and improve the very latest software together - then make it available to everyone.

Out of this, there is at best some implied/indirect support of some hinted philosophy, or pragmatic methodology, but same could be said about Collective bargaining which is neither described as a philosophy, or pragmatic methodology. If one would dare to guess the intended message, I suspect Ubuntu want to describe the effect and result of open source.

The second source (android), is describing the android philosophy, which in turn states: Android is intentionally and explicitly an open-source -- as opposed to free software -- effort: a group of organizations with shared needs has pooled resources to collaborate on a single implementation of a shared product. The Android philosophy is pragmatic, first and foremost. The objective is a shared product that each contributor can tailor and customize.

It is of course free to interpretation, but from my point of view it looks like they say that Android is the result from the open source community, not the free software community. If they had wanted to say "The Open Source philosophy is pragmatic", they would had said that and not "The Android philosophy is pragmatic". In the end this leave me with the impression that neither those sources are directly supporting the claim that: open source is a philosophy/pragmatic methodology. Instead the only reliable source we got is the OSI open source definition, which is describing software licensed under specific distribution terms. Belorn (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Android in it current use and regulations on mobile phones

  • does not provide root-access to users to remove unwanted bloatware and pre-installed data collection tools,
  • root access is provided to users on other operating systems, like Linux, Windows and Mac,
  • of course users should not use the phone under a root or administrator account for security reasons, but OPENess of Software means that its application grants the owner of the device full control about the device and its installed opensource software. There is nothing wrong with the approach that companies want to restrict the alteration of apps and system components, because it will reduce their ability of data collection and reduce their benefit for the commercial use of the collected data e.g. for advertisment. Nevertheless the OPENess of Open Source Software has commercial contraints, that should be visible for users.
  • e.g INFO: Compiled Open Source Software does not grant Root/Administrator Access to the Mobile Device Owner. Preinstalled Components for Data Collection cannot be removed.

information goodEdit

The "Economic analysis" section opens with "Most economists agree that open-source candidates have an information good" and lists citation 14 as "Grandstand, 1999". Searching Google for '"information good" Grandstand 1999' returns nothing relevant. Is there a better citation for this statement? Greensencha (talk) 06:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Found it, it's Ove "Granstrand", not "Grandstand" and his 1999 book "The Economics and Management of Intellectual Property: Towards Intellectual Capitalism". I can't verify that the book actually supports the statement "Most economists agree that open-source candidates have an information good", but I'm going to update the wiki article reference [14] to correct the name mis-spelling and add the book title. Greensencha (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Ubuntu 11.04.png Nominated for DeletionEdit

  An image used in this article, File:Ubuntu 11.04.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Ubuntu 11.04.png)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

And... Open Source includes Open Income?Edit

The article lacks economic content. At least a brief independent section on the economics of open source should be included, established financing practices, project costs, estimated social benefits, state of wages (not all participants are income stalled, right?)... djb — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

There is two articles already on this subject, Business models for open source software and Open source economics. I suspect writing a summery here would be useful, and later on merge those two articles into one. Belorn (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I expanded the section here and linked both of the other articles. -- Beland (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

History and article weightEdit

As it stands, the article is very heavily weighted towards "open source" in its technology-related meaning, specifically with regard to computing and software. While that's accurate in the sense that this is by far the most common use of the term today, we already have a separate article for open-source software (OSS). Imo, this article should focus on the history and use of the term in all known senses and leave the details about OSS to that other article.

The history section in particular needs to go into more detail about the origin of the term and its use generally, especially in non-technological contexts. For example, the 1982 edition of the World Factbook says, at the beginning of its entry about the United States (page 244, emphasis mine), "This 'Factsheet' on the US is provided solely as a service to those wishing to make rough comparisons of foreign country data with a US 'yardstick.' Information is from US open sources and publications and in no sense represents estimates by the US Intelligence Community." Clearly the term was in use back in 1982 in the general sense of freely available and distributed information. I imagine the term probably predates that.

So, basically, if anyone's out there who knows more about this, it would be good to have more detailed information about the etymology and usage of the term in this article. -- Hux (talk) 03:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand that you want the article to include more detailed information regards to open source outside software development and licensing, but Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint.. (WP:WEIGHT). That said, what I can see, "open source", as a term, has never existed before 1998. The term "Open sources" is synonymous with public sources, and thus refers to sources of information. This is a completely different and unrelated concept than open source. If we applied that context to programs, the source of a program would be the programmer who wrote it.
One would also not call, in 1998, a specific source to be an "open source", rather you would just call the source to be open, or accessible, or public. A group of sources on the other hand was sometimes called open sources, as compared to classified sources.Belorn (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Why do you use the year 1998 here?
The term "open source movement" appeared in the early 1980s in the athmospere of Larry Wall, Henry Spencer and Rich Salz. It was a natural result of building the usenet. --Schily (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Sounds skeptical since Raymond is commonly attributed to inventing the term in January 1998. Do you have a source that shows Larry Wall, Henry Spencer and Rich Salz creating a movement that they, in the 1980's called "open source movement"? Belorn (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Everybody who was using the news system in the early 1980s, knows that the usenet is a child of OSS and a few years ago, I was able to find news articles from the early 1980s via google that contain the term "opensource movement" in articles from the named persons. Recently, I tried to remember the search criteria but was no longer able to locate these articles - you may try it by your own. Anyway, the "free software movement" from Stallman started with Stallman taking the existing OpenSource Gosling EMACS and distributing a slightly modified version as "free software" under the name GNU EMACS around 1984. --Schily (talk) 08:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Got limited time, but sure I can take a early test on the first name and see what I can find. --- . Here is one: [[1]] originally published 1999. This is the first article that I could find that in talks about Larry Wall and the open source movement. Now I might not have found "the right article", or maybe one of the other 2 names has articles in the way that you describe (will search later when I got a free moment), but one should be skeptical in cases like this. It is common that people want to retroactive apply terms to points before it was crated, as a way to extend it. That is however not encyclopedic to do. Belorn (talk) 09:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

multiple issuesEdit

  1. Lead need to be directly supported by sources or sourced claims later in the article. It reads currently as original research trying to prove a point. It try to prove this point by giving single examples to support generic claims (the "source" used to support this claim: This is increasingly being applied in other fields of endeavor, such as biotechnology.) was Open Source Drug Discovery ). example about a single open source project does not prove an increasingly trend of anything. Last, the lead is fumbling around trying to define open source to mean something outside software. Find a source that direct support that definition for that please! (see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_22#Category:Open_methodologies for example attempts to do so.)
  2. Sections like Open source #Economic analysis reads like editorial piece. What Economic analysis claims/story only really supporting source is that "most economists agree that open-source candidates have an information good". After that point, it rambles around the concept of zero marginal costs, brings up the social costs (and administration and enforcement costs) of copyright, and end on a "there is an efficiency argument to be made on behalf of open-sourced goods." not a single statement in all that is supported beyond the simple (related?) fact that Creative Commons have websites where individuals can file for alternative "licenses", or levels of restriction, for their works.
  3. Open source#Society and culture: Open-source culture is the creative practice of appropriation and free sharing of found and created content.. Never heard of something called open source culture, so lets look and see if anyone uses that word. First hit is Wikipedia? Oki not a good sign. You can find a discussion here at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_22#open_source. Potential first fix could be to rename it to "Methodologies used in open source". Next, it is a really long essay style text, largely unsupported by sources. It takes up an aggressive standpoint vs "Free Culture, and proclaiming that "The idea of an "open-source" culture runs parallel to "Free Culture," but is substantively different. Free culture is a term derived from the free software movement, and in contrast to that vision of culture, proponents of open-source culture (OSC) maintain that some intellectual property law needs to exist to protect cultural producers.". Nice little opinion piece (NPOV issues?), and Free culture article has not a single hint of what is being said here. It also discuss the history of open source and make claims that open source culture is older than 1983, (see above discussion, see history section, and so on why this is wrong factually.).
  4. Open source#Applications. Beyond being a list (which should always be avoided see WP:NOTDIRECTORY), it has serious issues of undue weight. Beyond the software stacks being described, basically everything else is unknown to mainstream use of the word open source. Are Vores Øl really a significant subject to open source? This list of non-software use of open source might belong to its own page where the relevance of open source beer has much more weight than in the article about open source. Belorn (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Hhumm... do I smell that earthy sent of a troll?--Aspro (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
What a crime, I am asking that sections and lead should be supported by sources´. See above section about open statement and History of the term 2. I honestly do not know why the computer articles have a tendency to accept no citations and long essay style segments, but it should not be like that. So No - No troll. Belorn (talk) 09:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I largely rewrote the "Economic analysis" section and added examples to the intro, which may take care of some of your concerns. Definitely still needs work, especially citations. -- Beland (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

A good start, and since the main article has a few more sources that this one (through, lacking in general), maybe some of those are useable here. Also, by increasing the size of the section, it will make rewriting the still rambling unsupported parts much easier since it wont reduce the section into meaningless. The initial paragraph that talks about zero marginal cost economics is really hard to read. [2], [3], and [4] might help there, as might Yochai Benkler and Eric von Hippel ([5]).
The lead still need to be completely rewritten. Since the lead is trying to prove points with defining open source to be all kinds of things like philosophies, pragmatic methodologies, Historical environments, and conceptual models, it kind of fall apart everywhere without sources in it or from the rest of the article. Belorn (talk) 09:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyrighted Material RemovedEdit

I just removed a lengthy comment from (talk) because it was plagiarized from a copyrighted web page at [ ] or [ ]. Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia, and do not present it as your own work without attribution. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


"In production and development, open source as a development model promotes a) universal access via free license to a product's design or blueprint, and b) universal redistribution of that design or blueprint, including subsequent improvements to it by anyone"

This is cited but I kind of disagree with it: I think it is entirely possible for an entity to release something that is open source whilst having a restrictive, non-free licence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J05HYYY (talkcontribs) 01:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


How about a criticism section? Due to lack of proper funding, open source software is sometimes unfinished and sometimes the quality assurance is not good enough. (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Open sourceEdit

This term has a conceptual problem: it mixes up software licensing with development methodology, using a term "source model" whose meaning is unclear.

"Open source software" is a criterion about how a program is developed. If a program's source is available under a certain kind of license, then it is "open source".

There is an "open source development methodology", what ESR called the "Bazaar" model. But the two do not necessarily go together. Which one does "source model" refer to?

If a single person develops a certain program, and releases source code once a year under the GNU GPL or the modified BSD license, that program qualifies as "open source". If he never releases intermediate versions and declines to discuss its development with anyone, he does not practice the "open source development methodology", but the program is "open source" anyway.

What should be entered as the "source model" of that program?

It is also possible to practice the "open source development methodology" but release the program under licensing that is not "open source". What should be entered as the "source model" of that program?

Is "source model" really a way of characterizing licenses, or does it refer to development methodology?

--David Hedlund (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

For the moment Wikipedia obeys the open source doctrine which calls for making free software appear marginal. But this could be changed with your help. --David Hedlund (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

What do you call code that's open for viewing but otherwise fully copyrighted?Edit

As in the section heading. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Rephrase neededEdit

Starting in the beginning of the 2000s, a number of companies began to publish a small parts of their source code to claim they were open source, while keeping key parts closed. This led to the development of the now widely used terms free open-source software and commercial open-source software to distinguish between truly open and hybrid forms of open source

this doesn't sound right — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It is right, see Open-source software and Free and open-source software. Mion (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


This article kind of relates to me that demands open source is a closed topic and takes the user into a ubiquitous notion that information is user affiliated. This is not true. The information is correct rather needed this pointed out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Open source. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Reversing the bold move of 11 March 2016Edit

  • At 05:35, 11 March 2016‎ Fgnievinski moved page Open source to Open-source model over redirect.
    • This appears to have been a bold move with no prior discussion
    • There are four talk page archives (e.g. Talk:Open source/Archive 4) which should move with this page, but did not
    • Open source (disambiguation) was last updated at 16:59, 22 January 2016 by a vandal. I just reverted their edit, so the version of 21:01, 18 August 2015 is current. Any page move and/or change in primary topic of this sort requires disambiguation page updates to keep the dab in sync with the article configuration
    • The page history dates to the early days of Wikipedia in 2001 (see nost:Open source), and has undergone well over 3,000 revisions, with this being the only page move I see in the history
    • The article was stable at the title Open source for 14 years, 4 months
  • There is no consensus on what the primary topic for Open source is:
    • "Open-source model" was primary topic for 14 years, 4 months, though in its early iterations is was substantially about software
    • At 05:35, 11 March 2016 Fgnievinski said Open-source software ("primary topic is software") (diff)
      • At 22:55, 27 August 2005 text copied/derived from "open source" (as a start) to have an article specific to open-source software only
      • At 00:13, 28 August 2005 removed sections that are obviously specific to open-source software
    • At 02:17, 29 October 2016 Mais oui! said Open-source movement (diff)
      • This article dates from December 2001‎ – and in all the past 14+ years it appears there have been no previous primary topic claims for this

The summary style guideline supports the idea of a broad-concept article titled Open source which has a lead section describing the open-source model and includes sections summarizing all related topics including open-source software, open-source movement and other topics listed at Open source (disambiguation). Place {{Main article}} hatnotes on each of these sections which summarize the more detailed articles.

Making one of these subtopics primary goes against this guideline, and presents an unstable configuration is more prone to edit warring and further requests to move pages. I'm reminded of human gastrointestinal tract being made the primary topic for gastrointestinal tract. Much "drama" ensued from that.

So for these reasons, I'm reverting the March 2016 move. Please use {{subst:Requested move}} to request a move of this page. See WP:RM for instructions.

P.S. I'm here because the page Open-source software turned up in Category:Articles with redirect hatnotes needing review, a category that I regularly patrol. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


First, as the existence of distinct concepts is not disputed, I kindly request restoring the renaming of Open source to Open-source model, keeping the former as a redirect to the latter. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Your request is reasonable, but I think there should be a broader discussion first. Though we do have many articles with "model" in their titles, my belief is that "open source" is understood to mean the same thing, and per WP:CONCISE we prefer titles that are no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. I believe that "open source" is sufficient, and adding "model" does little to further distinguish the topic. For example, we have free source, but not free source model. Feel free to use {{subst:Requested move}} at the bottom of this page to initiate a proper discussion. Do you need help with that? I don't intend to argue any more strongly against your proposal than I already have above. wbm1058 (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Now on a separate issue, I've cleaned-up Open source (disambiguation), and the vast majority of articles are related to open-source software. I could develop a broad-concept article (BCAC) as suggested, easily transcluding the lead of each main-article, but the BCA would end up being mostly about software. At this point I'd like to kindly ask you to reconsider my proposition that, although Open-source model is a broader concept, it remains a secondary topic, because: (1) it followed from open-source software; and (2) it is much less notable, as attested by the quantity of literature about open-source software, with open-source model appearing to be a low-quality chimera, bordering on original synthesis. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Right, I was thinking that most of that "broad-concept dab" could be merged into this article. We might be left with just a short disambiguation consisting only of the primary link to this article, and the items in the Miscellaneous section. If you cull out the "low-quality chimera" on this page, that will make the "disambiguation" items easier to find. As to making the dominant subtopic (software) the primary topic for the broader concept, can you point me to any examples of where this has been done with other topics, and that configuration has been stable over a longer term? I'd be more open to the idea if you could show me some precedents. I'm reminded of New York, where efforts to make the dominant subtopic, New York City, the primary topic for "New York", have stalled with no consensus. Yeah, and I think NYC was settled first, before any other part of the state ;0) – wbm1058 (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I can point to the historical section Open-source software#Extensions for non-software usage and to the fact that open source beyond software is an ill-defined concept, with no clear distinction from, e.g., open collaboration, open content, etc. Take for example, the lead of open-source model: the first reference is about open-source software, the second one about open collaboration and/or open innovation, the third one about open source appropriate technology. But no source is connecting the dots -- that's original synthesis, hence the low-quality of that article. fgnievinski (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
This Ngram shows the simple term "open source" is used much more frequently than "open source model". wbm1058 (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
But, is "open source" a shorthand for "open source software" or does it refer to the broader concept? fgnievinski (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I think I've nailed it: looking at dictionaries, "open source" refers either to software only or to software first:

Which demonstrates that "open source" should redirect to open-source software. fgnievinski (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I understand your POV on this. This discussion reminded me of Slow movement (culture). An analogous argument would be that the primary topic for the "slow movement" should be Slow Food, as that's what started everything else, as I understand it. You can see that there have been ongoing discussions about the configuration of that topic area, as well. I'm taking a short break, and expect to revisit this page in a few days. Still think it would be better to have a wider discussion. wbm1058 (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
@Wbm1058: As there seems to be no further pending issues, could we re-reversing the bold move, please? Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
YOU are the one who made the bold move, as I already explained to you. Sorry, I had three things going at once, and I put this in third position in my priority list. Right now I'm working on my second item, having finished my highest priority. It may be several more days before I return to this item, but it's still in my queue – if you want to wait on me to take the time to further review this and fully buy into your position. My mind isn't really on this at the moment, but I think where we were at is that you had tagged the dab as a broad concept, and my thinking is that this article currently at the base name is the broad-concept article. Therefore Open source (disambiguation) is mostly a content fork of Open source, therefore most of the dab should be merged into this page. Making software the primary topic when we have such a muddy organization of the broad concept/disambiguation, is asking for trouble in my view. If you want to expedite your agenda to move first, and cleanup the fork later, as I already suggested, submit a requested move. No guarantees that will get your desired outcome, but hopefully that would draw others into the discussion. Otherwise, please be patient, and I will eventually get back to this. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I cited four references demonstrating that the primary topic of "open source" is open-source software. If you can't find fault with these sources, would you please be so kind to restore my bold move. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
And I take back the broad-concept tagging of Open source (disambiguation); furthermore, I have no interest in cleaning-up the messy Open-source model article. fgnievinski (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
OK. I see that Britannica has one article on the topic, with an interesting final paragraph that mentions Wikipedia. And we have what, 20 articles? 30? I suppose because of our open-source culture we have more of a tendency to write on the topic. Anyone wanting a concise summary might best read Britannica's article. Right, I can't really find fault with your viewpoint, and surprisingly in spite of the volumes written over the years, it's pretty quiet here now. And your move stood for eight months without any other objections I've been. So, I'll endorse it, and properly complete the move, including the talk page archives. Sorry to keep you waiting, and thanks for your patience. wbm1058 (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

  Done I have no strong opinion on the redirect Open source, as to whether it should redirect to open-source model, open-source software, open-source software movement (which the Britannica article hints at), or somewhere else (the disambiguation or the broad-concept). So feel free to change the redirect yourself, and if you find there's disagreement on the matter, please use WP:Redirects for discussion to resolve it. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Open-source model. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

External links modified (January 2018)Edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Open-source model. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but what IS open source?Edit

This article fails to address (or at least conceals the answer to) a key question:

What actually MAKES a program open source? For example, if a program is NOT open source, what prevents me from viewing and editing it as a text file?

This question is what brought me to this article. In my opinion, it is more than a key question. It is THE a key question. ---Dagme (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyright is what prevents you from (legally) editing and/or redistributing the program. So what makes a program open source is that the copyright holder has granted the legal permission to do so, using a license that fulfils the the Open Source Definition.
With some technologies, you also cannot just view the pgoram as a text file because it has been compiled to machine code. In that case, there is also the practical issue of getting access to the source code in the first place.
And yes, I agree that this article is not very helpful. I feel that's because it's too abstract and tries to cover topics ranging from software to fashion. The article specifically about Open-source software is better in that regard. --Tobias K. (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Improved open source disambiguation (that may become a broad concept article)Edit

"Open source" (without dash, with dash, and disambiguation) are now redirected to the improved Open source disambiguation which may become a WP:broad concept article to reduce the extreme number of disambiguation-link alarms. Please read more on the latest developments on Talk:Open source and feel free to improve Open source. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Editing a table within this pageEdit

Hi Folks,

I came across this wiki page - and within the table, a company called 'Sauce Labs' is described as the leading company for Selenium (as seen in the table). That being said, the citation used - clearly mentions BrowserStack and Sauce Labs. Could you guide me on the best way of incorporating 'BrowserStack' into the table? I am a novice and want to be cautious as there is also a conflict of interest (I work for BrowserStack).

Thank you.

SManiar (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Return to "Open-source model" page.