From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A screenshot of
running the
powered by , a calculator program, the built in calendar, , , and the , all of which are open-source software.
Open-source software (OSS) is
made available with a
in which the
holder provides the rights to study, change, and distribute the software to anyone and for any purpose. Open-source software may be developed in a . According to scientists who studied it, open-source software is a prominent example of . The term is often written without a hyphen as "open source software".
, or collaborative development from multiple independent sources, generates an increasingly more diverse scope of design perspective than any one company is capable of developing and sustaining long term. A 2008 report by the
states that adoption of open-source software models has resulted in savings of about $60 billion (?48 billion) per year to consumers.
In the early days of computing, programmers and developers shared software in order to learn from each other and evolve the field of computing. Eventually the open source notion moved to the way side of commercialization of software in the years . However, academics still often developed software collaboratively, for example
in 1979 with the
typesetting system or
in 1983 with the
operating system. In 1997,
published , a reflective analysis of the hacker community and free software principles. The paper received significant attention in early 1998, and was one factor in motivating
to release their popular
Internet suite as . This source code subsequently became the basis behind , ,
Netscape's act prompted Raymond and others to look into how to bring the 's free software ideas and perceived benefits to the commercial software industry. They concluded that FSF's social activism was not appealing to companies like Netscape, and looked for a way to rebrand the
to emphasize the business potential of sharing and collaborating on software source code. The new term they chose was "open source", which was soon adopted by , publisher , , and others. The
was founded in February 1998 to encourage use of the new term and evangelize open-source principles.
While the Open Source Initiative sought to encourage the use of the new term and evangelize the principles it adhered to, commercial software vendors found themselves increasingly threatened by the concept of freely distributed software and universal access to an application's . A
executive publicly stated in 2001 that "open source is an intellectual property destroyer. I can't imagine something that could be worse than this for the software business and the intellectual-property business." However, while
has historically played a role outside of the mainstream of private software development, companies as large as
have begun to develop official open-source presences on the Internet. IBM, Oracle, Google and State Farm are just a few of the companies with a serious public stake in today's competitive
market. There has been a significant shift in the corporate philosophy concerning the development of .
was launched in 1983. In 1998, a group of individuals advocated that the term free software should be replaced by open-source software (OSS) as an expression which is less ambiguous and more comfortable for the corporate world. Software developers may want to publish their software with an , so that anybody may also develop the same software or understand its internal functioning. With open-source software, generally anyone is allowed to create modifications of it, port it to new operating systems and , share it with others or, in some cases, market it. Scholars Casson and Ryan have pointed out several policy-based reasons for adoption of open source – in particular, the heightened value proposition from open source (when compared to most proprietary formats) in the following categories:
Affordability
Transparency
Perpetuity
Interoperability
Flexibility
Localization—particularly in the context of local governments (who make software decisions). Casson and Ryan argue that "governments have an inherent responsibility and fiduciary duty to taxpayers" which includes the careful analysis of these factors when deciding to purchase proprietary software or implement an open-source option.
The , notably, presents an open-source philosophy, and further defines the terms of use, modification and redistribution of open-source software. Software licenses grant rights to users which would otherwise be reserved by copyright law to the copyright holder. Several open-source software licenses have qualified within the boundaries of the Open Source Definition. The most prominent and popular example is the
(GPL), which "allows free distribution under the condition that further developments and applications are put under the same licence", thus also free.
The open source label came out of a strategy session held on April 7, 1998 in
in reaction to
January 1998 announcement of a source code release for
(as ). A group of individuals at the session included , , Tom Paquin, , , , , , Greg Olson, , , , ,
and . They used the opportunity before the release of Navigator's source code to clarify a potential confusion caused by the ambiguity of the word "free" in .
Many people claimed that the birth of the , since 1969, started the open source movement, while others do not distinguish between open-source and free software movements.
(FSF), started in 1985, intended the word "free" to mean freedom to distribute (or "free as in free speech") and not freedom from cost (or "free as in free beer"). Since a great deal of free software already was (and still is) free of charge, such free software became associated with zero cost, which seemed anti-commercial.
(OSI) was formed in February 1998 by Eric Raymond and Bruce Perens. With at least 20 years of evidence from case histories of closed software development versus open development already provided by the Internet developer community, the OSI presented the "open source" case to commercial businesses, like Netscape. The OSI hoped that the use of the label "open source", a term suggested by
at the strategy session, would eliminate ambiguity, particularly for individuals who perceive "free software" as anti-commercial. They sought to bring a higher profile to the practical benefits of freely available source code, and they wanted to bring major software businesses and other high-tech industries into open source. Perens attempted to register "open source" as a
for the OSI, but that attempt was impractical by
standards. Meanwhile, due to the presentation of Raymond's paper to the upper management at Netscape—Raymond only discovered when he read the , and was called by
CEO 's PA later in the day—Netscape released its Navigator source code as open source, with favorable results.
The logo of the
The 's (OSI) definition is recognized by governments internationally as the standard or de facto definition. In addition, many of the world's largest open source software projects and contributors, including Debian, Drupal Association, FreeBSD Foundation, Linux Foundation, Mozilla Foundation, Wikimedia Foundation, Wordpress Foundation have committed to upholding the OSI's mission and Open Source Definition through the OSI Affiliate Agreement.
to determine whether it considers a software license open source. The definition was based on the , written and adapted primarily by Perens. Perens did not base his writing on the "four freedoms" from the
(FSF), which were only widely available later.
Under Perens' definition, open source describes a broad general type of software license that makes source code available to the general public with relaxed or non-existent restrictions on the use and modification of the code. It is an explicit "feature" of open source that it puts very few restrictions on the use or distribution by any organization or user, in order to enable the rapid evolution of the software.
Despite initially accepting it,
of the FSF now flatly opposes the term "Open Source" being applied to what they refer to as "free software". Although he agrees that the two terms describe "almost the same category of software", Stallman considers equating the terms incorrect and misleading. Stallman also opposes the professed pragmatism of the , as he fears that the free software ideals of freedom and community are threatened by compromising on the FSF's idealistic standards for software freedom. The FSF considers free software to be a
of open source software, and Richard Stallman explained that
software, for example, can be developed as open source, despite that it does not give its users freedom (it restricts them), and thus doesn't qualify as free software.
When an author contributes code to an open-source project (e.g., Apache.org) they do so under an explicit license (e.g., the Apache Contributor License Agreement) or an implicit license (e.g. the open-source license under which the project is already licensing code). Some open-source projects do not take contributed code under a license, but actually require joint assignment of the author's copyright in order to accept code contributions into the project.
Examples of
/ open-source licenses include , , , , ,
is a negative aspect of the open-source movement because it is often difficult to understand the legal implications of the differences between licenses. With more than 180,000 open-source projects available and more than 1400 unique licenses, the complexity of deciding how to manage open-source use within "closed-source" commercial enterprises has dramatically increased. Some are home-grown, while others are modeled after mainstream
licenses such as Berkeley Software Distribution ("BSD"), Apache, MIT-style (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), or GNU General Public License ("GPL"). In view of this, open-source practitioners are starting to use classification schemes in which
licenses are grouped (typically based on the existence and obligations impos the strength of the copyleft provision).
An important legal milestone for the open source / free software movement was passed in 2008, when the US federal appeals court ruled that
definitely do set legally binding conditions on the use of copyrighted work, and they are therefore enforceable under existing copyright law. As a result, if end-users violate the licensing conditions, their license disappears, meaning they are infringing copyright. Despite this licensing risk, most commercial software vendors are using open source software in commercial products while fulfilling the license terms, e.g. leveraging the Apache license.
Certification can help to build user confidence. Certification could be applied to the simplest component, to a whole software system. The , initiated a project known as "The Global Desktop Project". This project aims to build a desktop interface that every end-user is able to understand and interact with, thus crossing the language and cultural barriers. The project would improve developing nations' access to information systems. UNU/IIST hopes to achieve this without any compromise in the quality of the software by introducing certifications.
In his 1997 essay ,
suggests a model for developing OSS known as the bazaar model. Raymond likens the development of software by traditional methodologies to building a cathedral, "carefully crafted by individual wizards or small bands of mages working in splendid isolation". He suggests that all software should be developed using the bazaar style, which he described as "a great babbling bazaar of differing agendas and approaches."
In the traditional model of development, which he called the cathedral model, development takes place in a centralized way. Roles are clearly defined. Roles include people dedicated to designing (the architects), people responsible for managing the project, and people responsible for implementation. Traditional software engineering follows the cathedral model.
The bazaar model, however, is different. In this model, roles are not clearly defined. Gregorio Robles suggests that software developed using the bazaar model should exhibit the following patterns:
Users should be treated as co-developers
The users are treated like co-developers and so they should have access to the source code of the software. Furthermore, users are encouraged to submit additions to the software, code fixes for the software, , documentation etc. Having more co-developers increases the rate at which the software evolves.
states, "Given enough eyeballs all bugs are shallow." This means that if many users view the source code, they will eventually find all bugs and suggest how to fix them. Note that some users have advanced programming skills, and furthermore, each user's machine provides an additional testing environment. This new testing environment offers that ability to find and fix a new bug.
Early releases
The first version of the software should be released as early as possible so as to increase one's chances of finding co-developers early.
Frequent integration
Code changes should be integrated (merged into a shared code base) as often as possible so as to avoid the overhead of fixing a large number of bugs at the end of the project life cycle. Some open source projects have nightly builds where
on a daily basis.
Several versions
There should be at least two versions of the software. There should be a buggier version with more features and a more stable version with fewer features. The buggy version (also called the development version) is for users who want the immediate use of the latest features, and are willing to accept the risk of using code that is not yet thoroughly tested. The users can then act as co-developers, reporting bugs and providing bug fixes.
High modularization
The general structure of the software should be modular allowing for parallel development on independent components.
Dynamic decision making structure
There is a need for a decision making structure, whether formal or informal, that makes strategic decisions depending on changing user requirements and other factors. Compare with .
Data suggests, however, that OSS is not quite as democratic as the bazaar model suggests. An analysis of five billion bytes of free/open source code by 31,999 developers shows that 74% of the code was written by the most active 10% of authors. The average number of authors involved in a project was 5.1, with the median at 2.
Open source software is usually easier to obtain than proprietary software, often resulting in increased use. Additionally, the availability of an open source implementation of a standard can increase adoption of that standard. It has also helped to build developer loyalty as developers feel empowered and have a sense of ownership of the end product.
Moreover, lower costs of marketing and logistical services are needed for OSS. OSS also helps companies keep abreast of technology developments. It is a good tool to promote a company's image, including its commercial products. The OSS development approach has helped produce reliable, high quality software quickly and inexpensively.
Open source development offers the potential for a more flexible technology and quicker innovation. It is said to be more reliable since it typically has thousands of independent programmers testing and fixing bugs of the software. Open source is not dependent on the company or author that originally created it. Even if the company fails, the code continues to exist and be developed by its users. Also, it uses open standards ac thus, it does not have the problem of incompatible formats that exist in proprietary software.
It is flexible because modular systems allow programmers to build custom interfaces, or add new abilities to it and it is innovative since open source programs are the product of collaboration among a large number of different programmers. The mix of divergent perspectives, corporate objectives, and personal goals speeds up innovation.
Moreover, free software can be developed in accord with purely technical requirements. It does not require thinking about commercial pressure that often degrades the quality of the software. Commercial pressures make traditional software developers pay more attention to customers' requirements than to security requirements, since such features are somewhat invisible to the customer.
It is sometimes said that the open source development process may not be well defined and the stages in the development process, such as system testing and documentation may be ignored. However this is only true for small (mostly single programmer) projects. Larger, successful projects do define and enforce at least some rules as they need them to make the teamwork possible. In the most complex projects these rules may be as strict as reviewing even minor change by two independent developers.
Not all OSS initiatives have been successful, for example SourceXchange and . Software experts and researchers who are not convinced by open source's ability to produce quality systems identify the unclear process, the late defect discovery and the lack of any empirical evidence as the most important problems (collected data concerning productivity and quality). It is also difficult to design a commercially sound business model around the open source paradigm. Consequently, only technical requirements may be satisfied and not the ones of the market. In terms of security, open source may allow hackers to know about the weaknesses or loopholes of the software more easily than closed-source software. It depends on control mechanisms in order to create effective performance of autonomous agents who participate in virtual organizations.
In OSS development, tools are used to support the development of the product and the development process itself.
systems such as
(CVS) and later
are examples of tools, often themselves open source, help manage the source code files and the changes to those files for a software project. The projects are frequently hosted and published on sites like , , and .
Open source projects are often loosely organized with "little formalised process modelling or support", but utilities such as issue trackers are often used to organize open source software development. Commonly used
Tools such as
provide means of coordination among developers. Centralized code hosting sites also have social features that allow developers to communicate.
Some of the "more prominent organizations" involved in OSS development include the , creators of the A the , a nonprofit which as of 2012 employed Linus Torvalds,
the , home of the
the Debian Project, creators of the influential
GNU/L the , home of the F and , European-born community developing open source middleware. New organizations tend to have a more sophisticated governance model and their membership is often formed by legal entity members.
is a membership-based, non-profit (501 (c)(6)) organization established in 2001 that promotes the development and implementation of open source software solutions within US Federal, state and local government agencies. OSSI's efforts have focused on promoting adoption of open source software programs and policies within Federal Government and Defense and Homeland Security communities.
is a group created to raise awareness in the United States Federal Government about the benefits of open source software. Their stated goals are to encourage the government's use of open source software, participation in open source software projects, and incorporation of open source community dynamics to increase government transparency.
is a group dedicated to the advancement of OSS use and creation in the military.
is widely used both as independent applications and as components in non-open-source applications. Many
(VARs), and hardware
( or ) use open-source , modules, and
inside their proprietary, for-profit products and services. From a customer's perspective, the ability to use open technology under standard commercial terms and support is valuable. They are willing to pay for the legal protection (e.g., indemnification from copyright or patent infringement), "commercial-grade QA", and professional support/training/consulting that are typical of commercial software, while also receiving the benefits of fine-grained control and lack of lock-in that comes with open-source.
The debate over open source vs.
(alternatively called ) is sometimes heated.
The top four reasons (as provided by Open Source Business Conference survey) individuals or organizations choose open source software are:
lower cost
no vendor 'lock in'
better quality
Since innovative companies no longer rely heavily on software sales, proprietary software has become less of a necessity. As such, things like open source —or CMS—deployments are becoming more commonplace. In 2009, the US White House switched its CMS system from a proprietary system to
open source CMS. Further, companies like
(who traditionally sold software the old-fashioned way) continually debate the benefits of switching to open source availability, having already switched part of the product offering to open source code. In this way, open source software provides solutions to unique or specific problems. As such, it is reported that 98% of enterprise-level companies use open source software offerings in some capacity.
With this market shift, more critical systems are beginning to rely on open source offerings, allowing greater funding (such as
grants) to help "hunt for security bugs." According to a pilot study of organisations adopting (or not adopting) OSS; several factors of statistical significance were observed in the manager's beliefs in relation to (a) attitudes toward outcomes, (b) the influences and behaviours of others and (c) their ability to act.
Proprietary source distributors have started to develop and contribute to the open source community due to the market share shift, doing so by the need to reinvent their models in order to remain competitive.
Many advocates argue that open source software is inherently safer because any person can view, edit, and change code. A study of the Linux source code has 0.17 bugs per 1000 lines of code while proprietary software generally scores 20–30 bugs per 1000 lines.
According to the 's leader, , the main difference is that by choosing one term over the other (i.e. either "open source" or "") one lets others know about what one's goals are: "Open source is a dev free software is a social movement." Nevertheless, there is significant overlap between open source software and free software.
The FSF said that the term "open source" fosters an ambiguity of a different kind such that it confuses the mere availability of the source with the freedom to use, modify, and redistribute it. On the other hand, the "free software" term was criticized for the ambiguity of the word "free" as "available at no cost", which was seen as discouraging for business adoption, and for the historical ambiguous usage of the term.
Developers have used the
Free and Open Source Software (), or Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS), consequently, to describe open source software that is also . While the definition of open source software is very similar to the FSF's
it was based on the , written and adapted primarily by
with input from
and others.
The term "open source" was originally intended however, the term was deemed too descriptive, so no trademark exists. The OSI would prefer that people treat open source as if it were a trademark, and use it only to describe software licensed under an OSI approved license.
OSI Certified is a trademark licensed only to people who are distributing software licensed under a license listed on the Open Source Initiative's list.
Although the OSI definition of "open source software" is widely accepted, a small number of people and organizations use the term to refer to software where the source is available for viewing, but which may not legally be modified or redistributed. Such software is more often referred to as source-available, or as , a term coined by Microsoft in 2001. While in 2007 two shared source licenses were certified by the , most of the shared source licenses are still source-available only.
In 2007 , president of OSI, had criticized companies such as
for promoting their software as "open source" when in fact it did not have an OSI-approved license. In SugarCRM's case, it was because the software is so-called "" since it specified a "badge" that must be displayed in the user interface (SugarCRM has since switched to ). Another example was
prior to version 5, which called itself "the open source platform for numerical computation" but had a license that forbade commercial redistribution of modified versions.
Open-sourcing is the act of propagating the , most often referring to releasing previously
under an / license, but it may also refer programing Open Source software or installing Open Source software.
Notable software packages, previously proprietary, which have been open sourced include:
, the code of which became the basis of the
, which became the base of the
, was originally , then made proprietary in 2001(?), but in 2004 was re-GPL'd.
, which has become , and is now distributed (and owned) by
database, which was open sourced by
in 2000 and presently exists as a commercial product and an open-source fork ()
Before changing the license of software, distributors usually audit the source code for third party licensed code which they would have to remove or obtain permission for its relicense.
should also be removed as they may easily be discovered after release of the code.
"We migrated key functions from Windows to Linux because we needed an operating system that was stable and reliable – one that would give us in-house control. So if we needed to patch, adjust, or adapt, we could."
Official statement of the , which manages the computer systems for the
(ISS), regarding why they chose to switch from Windows to
on the ISS
Open source software projects are built and maintained by a network of volunteer programmers and are widely used in free as well as commercial products. Prime examples of open-source products are the , the e-commerce platform , internet browsers
(the project where the vast majority of development of the freeware
is done) and the full office suite . One of the most successful open-source products is the
operating system, an open-source
operating system, and its derivative , an operating system for mobile devices. In some industries, open source software is the norm.
While the term "open source" applied originally only to the source code of software, it is now being applied to many other areas such as , a movement to decentralize technologies so that any human can use them. However, it is often misapplied to other areas which have different and competing principles, which overlap only partially.
The same principles that underlie open source software can be found in many other ventures, such as , , and
publishing. Collectively, these principles are known as , , and : "any system of innovation or production that relies on goal-oriented yet loosely coordinated participants, who interact to create a product (or service) of economic value, which they make available to contributors and non-contributors alike."
This "culture" or ideology takes the view that the principles apply more generally to facilitate concurrent input of different agendas, approaches and priorities, in contrast with more centralized models of development such as those typically used in commercial companies.
St. Laurent, Andrew M. (2008). . O'Reilly Media. p. 4.  .
Levine, Sheen S.; Prietula, Michael J. (). . Organization Science. 25 (5): . :.  .
. opensource.com 2017.
. opensource.org. Opensource.org 2017.
Hoffman, Chris (). . howtogeek.com 2017.
Rothwell, Richard (5 August 2008). . . Archived from
on 8 September .
(Press release). . 16 April 2008. Archived from
on 18 January .
Gaudeul, Alexia (2007). . Review of Network Economics. 6 (2). :.  .
(2016). . O'Reilly Media. But the problem went deeper than that. The word "free" carried with it an inescapable moral connotation: if freedom was an end in itself, it didn't matter whether free software also happened to be better, or more profitable for certain businesses in certain circumstances. Those were merely pleasant side effects of a motive that was, at its root, neither technical nor mercantile, but moral. Furthermore, the "free as in freedom" position forced a glaring inconsistency on corporations who wanted to support particular free programs in one aspect of their business, but continue marketing proprietary software in others.
. Opensource.org.
B. Charny (3 May 2001). . CNET News.
Jeffrey Voas, Keith W. Miller & Tom Costello. Free and Open Source Software. IT Professional 12(6) (November 2010), pg. 14–16.
. . catb.org. The problem with it is twofold. First, ... the term "free" is very ambiguous ... Second, the term makes a lot of corporate types nervous.
Kelty, Christpher M. (2008).
press - durham and london. p. 99. Prior to 1998, Free Software referred either to the Free Software Foundation (and the watchful, micromanaging eye of Stallman) or to one of thousands of different commercial, avocational, or university-research projects, processes, licenses, and ideologies that had a variety of names: sourceware, freeware, shareware, open software, public domain software, and so on. The term Open Source, by contrast, sought to encompass them all in one movement.
(). . After the Netscape announcement broke in January I did a lot of thinking about the next phase -- the serious push to get "free software" accepted in the mainstream corporate world. And I realized we have a serious problem with "free software" itself. Specifically, we have a problem with the term "free software", itself, not the concept. I've become convinced that the term has to go.
"Open Standards, Open Source Adoption in the Public Sector, and Their Relationship to Microsoft's Market Dominance by Tony Casson, Patrick S. Ryan :: SSRN". Papers.ssrn.com.   .
Holtgrewe, Ursula (2004). "Articulating the Speed(s) of the Internet: The Case of Open Source/Free Software". . 13: 129–146. :.
Muffatto, Moreno (2006). Open Source: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Imperial College Press.  .
. . . Archived from
on . BOLD MOVE TO HARNESS CREATIVE POWER OF THOUSANDS OF INTERNET DEVELOPERS; COMPANY MAKES NETSCAPE NAVIGATOR AND COMMUNICATOR 4.0 IMMEDIATELY FREE FOR ALL USERS, SEEDING MARKET FOR ENTERPRISE AND NETCENTER BUSINESSES
. . . [...]The organization that manages open source developers working on the next generation of Netscape's browser and communication software. This event marked a historical milestone for the Internet as Netscape became the first major commercial software company to open its source code, a trend that has since been followed by several other corporations. Since the code was first published on the Internet, thousands of individuals and organizations have downloaded it and made hundreds of contributions to the software. Mozilla.org is now celebrating this one-year anniversary with a party Thursday night in San Francisco.
. Opensource.org.
. Opensource.org.
. Opensource.org.
Perens, Bruce. . . 1999.
. January 1999.  .
., The Open Source Definition according to the Open Source Initiative
. News.slashdot.org. .
Open Source Initiative. . opensource.org 2016.
Tiemann, Michael. . Open Source Initiative. Archived from
on 24 September .
(June 16, 2007). . Philosophy of the GNU Project. Free Software Foundation 2007. As the advocates of open source draw new users into our community, we free software activists have to work even more to bring the issue of freedom to those new users' attention. We have to say, 'It's free software and it gives you freedom!'—more and louder than ever. Every time you say 'free software' rather than 'open source,' you help our campaign.
(June 19, 2007). . Philosophy of the GNU Project. Free Software Foundation 2007. Sooner or later these users will be invited to switch back to proprietary software for some practical advantage Countless companies seek to offer such temptation, and why would users decline? Only if they have learned to value the freedom free software gives them, for its own sake. It is up to us to spread this idea—and in order to do that, we have to talk about freedom. A certain amount of the 'keep quiet' approach to business can be useful for the community, but we must have plenty of freedom talk too.
(June 16, 2007). . Philosophy of the GNU Project. Free Software Foundation 2007. Under the pressure of the movie and record companies, software for individuals to use is increasingly designed specifically to restrict them. This malicious feature is known as DRM, or Digital Restrictions Management (see ), and it is the antithesis in spirit of the freedom that free software aims to provide. [...] Yet some open source supporters have proposed 'open source DRM' software. Their idea is that by publishing the source code of programs designed to restrict your access to encrypted media, and allowing others to change it, they will produce more powerful and reliable software for restricting users like you. Then it will be delivered to you in devices that do not allow you to change it. This software might be 'open source,' and use the open sour but it won't be free software, since it won't respect the freedom of the users that actually run it. If the open source development model succeeds in making this software more powerful and reliable for restricting you, that will make it even worse.
Rosen, Lawrence. . flylib.com 2016.
Andrew T. Pham, Verint Systems Inc. and Matthew B. Weinstein and Jamie L. Ryerson. ""; www.IPO.org. June 2010.
Shiels, Maggie (). . BBC News.
Popp, Dr. Karl Michael (2015). Best Practices for commercial use of open source software. Norderstedt, Germany: Books on Demand.  .
15 November 2007 at the .
7 December 2007 at the .
Robles, Gregorio (2004).
(PDF). In Robert A. Gehring, Bernd Lutterbeck.
(PDF). Berlin: .
Ghosh, R.A.; Robles, G.; Glott, R. (2002). "Free/Libre and Open Source Software: Survey and Study Part V". Maastricht: International Institute of Infonomics.
US Department of Defense. . Chief Information Officer 2016.
Sharma, S Vijayan S Balaji Rajagopalan (2002).
(PDF). Info Systems Journal. 12: 7–25. :.
Landry, J Rajiv Gupta (September 2000). "Profiting from Open Source". . : (inactive ).
Reynolds, C Jeremy Wyatt (February 2011). . . 13: e24. :.
Plotkin, Hal (December 1998). "What (and Why) you should know about open-source software". Harvard Management Update: 8–9.
Payne, Christian (February 2002). "On the Security of Open Source Software". Info Systems Journal. 12 (1): 61–78. :.
. Gnu.org. .
Meffert, K Neil Rotstan (2007). . Java Genetic Algorithms Package. Archived from
Tripp, Andy (). . Javalobby.
Stamelos, I Lefteris A Apostolos O Georgios L. Bleris (2002).
(PDF). Info System Journal. 12: 43–60. :.
Gallivan, Michael J. (2001). "Striking a Balance Between Trust and Control in a Virtual Organization: A Content Analysis of Open Source Software Case Studies". Info Systems Journal. 11 (4): 277–304. :.
Boldyreff, C Lavery, J Nutter, D Rank, Stephen.
(PDF). Flosshub 2016.
Stansberry, Glen (18 September 2008). . Smashing Magazine 2016.
Frantzell, Lennart. . IBM developerworks 2016.
Baker, Jason. . opensource.com 2016.
(2008), , AFME 2008.
Open Source Software Institute. . Open Source Software Institute 2016.
Hellekson, Gunnar. . Open Source for America.
from EntandoSrl (Entando ). . Mil-OSS.
Popp, Dr. Karl M Meyer, Ralf (2010). . Norderstedt, Germany: Books on Demand.  .
Irina Guseva (@irina_guseva) (). . Cmswire.com.
. PCWorld Business Center. Pcworld.com. .
Geoff Spick (@Goffee71) (). . Cmswire.com.
. News.cnet.com. .
Murphy, David (). . News & Opinion. PCMag.com.
. News.cnet.com.
Greenley, Neil.
Boulanger, A. (2005). Open-source versus proprietary software: Is one more reliable and secure than the other? IBM Systems Journal, 44(2), 239-248.
Seltzer, Larry (). . PCMag.com.
Michelle Delio. . Wired.com.
. Gnu.org.
. The problem with it is twofold. First, ... the term "free" is very ambiguous ... Second, the term makes a lot of corporate types nervous.
Kelty, Christpher M. (2008).
press - durham and london. p. 99. Prior to 1998, Free Software referred either to the Free Software Foundation (and the watchful, micromanaging eye of Stallman) or to one of thousands of different commercial, avocational, or university-research projects, processes, licenses, and ideologies that had a variety of names: sourceware, freeware, shareware, open software, public domain software, and so on. The term Open Source, by contrast, sought to encompass them all in one movement.
OSI. . conferees decided it was time to dump the moralizing and confrontational attitude that had been associated with "free software" in the past and sell the idea strictly on the same pragmatic, business-case grounds
Stallman, Richard. . FLOSS and FOSS. Free Software Foundation 2016.
(). . Philosophy of the GNU Project. .
(19 September 2006). .
(). . . Archived from
. Geekzone.co.nz. .
. opensource.org. . Acting on the advice of the License Approval Chair, the OSI Board today approved the Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL) and the Microsoft Reciprocal License (Ms-RL). The decision to approve was informed by the overwhelming (though not unanimous) consensus from the open source community that these licenses satisfied the 10 criteria of the Open Source definition, and should therefore be approved.
Berlind, David (21 November 2006). . . Archived from
on 1 January .
(). . The Register.
. INRIA. Archived from
Agerfalk, Par and Fitzgerald, Brian (2008), Outsourcing to an Unknown Workforce: Exploring Opensourcing as a Global Sourcing Strategy, MIS Quarterly, Vol 32, No 2, pp.385-410
Gunter, Joel (May 10, 2013). . The Telegraph.
Bridgewater, Adrian (May 13, 2013). . Computer Weekly.
Michael J. Gallivan, "Striking a Balance Between Trust and Control in a Virtual Organization: A Content Analysis of Open Source Software Case Studies", Info Systems Journal 11 (2001): 277–304
Hal Plotkin, "What (and Why) you should know about open source software" Harvard Management Update 12 (1998): 8–9
Noyes, Katherine. . PCWorld 2016.
(September 24, 2007). . Philosophy of the GNU Project. Free Software Foundation 2007. However, not all of the users and developers of free software agreed with the goals of the free software movement. In 1998, a part of the free software community splintered off and began campaigning in the name of 'open source.' The term was originally proposed to avoid a possible misunderstanding of the term 'free software,' but it soon became associated with philosophical views quite different from those of the free software movement.
. ...building the world's first replicable open source self-sufficient decentralized high-appropriate-tech permaculture ecovillage...
. Informs.org. .
Raymond, Eric S. . ed 3.0. 2000.
Androutsellis-Theotokis, S ; Kechagia, M Gousios, Georgios (2010).
(PDF). Foundations and Trends in Technology, Information and Operations Management. 4 (3–4): 187–347. :.  .
Coleman, E. Gabriella. Coding Freedom: The Ethics and Aesthetics of Hacking (Princeton UP, 2012)
Fadi P. D James A. M. McHugh (2008). Open Source: Technology and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  .
Chris DiBona and Sam Ockman and Mark Stone, ed. (1999). Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution. O'Reilly.  .
Joshua Gay, ed. (2002).
(PDF). Boston: GNU Press, Free Software Foundation.  .
v. Engelhardt, Sebastian (2008).
Lerner, J. & Tirole, J. (2002): 'Some simple economics on open source', Journal of Industrial Economics 50(2), p 197–234
V?lim?ki, Mikko (2005).
(PDF). Turre Publishing. Archived from
(PDF) on 4 March 2009.
Polley, Barry ().
(PDF). New Zealand Ministry of Justice.
Rossi, M. A. (2006): Decoding the free/open source software puzzle: A survey of theoretical and empirical contributions, in J. Bitzer P. Schr?der, eds, 'The Economics of Open Source Software Development', p 15–55.
— an online book containing essays from prominent members of the open source community
, essay on the differences between free software and open source, by
Schrape, Jan-Felix (2017).
(PDF). Stuttgart: Research Contributions to Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies 2017-03.
Wikimedia Commons has media related to .
Wikibooks has a book on the topic of:
Wikibooks has a book on the topic of:
— Many online research papers about Open Source
at Curlie (based on )
: Hidden categories:}