Talk:Free software movement

The open source community

The lead should have a small paragraph about the relation between the Free Software community and the Open Source community. This would be supported by the now named Subgroups and schisms section. Belorn (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I fixed your proposal.93.129.248.127 (talk) 10:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Style

Specifically regarding where quotations are more prolific, there seems to be some mixing of 'free software movement' and 'free-software movement' used. Which is proper? Raider480 (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

"Free Software Movement" is correct.Paradox (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

It should be "free-software movement" as "free software" is a compound modifier to "movement"; this is just the proper usage of punctuation in the English language. LordOfPens (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

The policy you should read is WP:COMMONNAME. Appealing to your grammar preferences does not override the rest of the world calling it "free software" without a hyphen. lethargilistic (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

This is not a grammar preference; this is a fundamental part of English grammar. When referring to the software, it is "free software"; when referring to the movement, it is "free-software movement". LordOfPens (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

It's the name of a movement and they self-identify this way, not hyphenated. lethargilistic (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Not all of us identify as such, and the movement is not unified enough to have a collective preference one way or the other. In such a circumstance, I believe the spelling should default to proper English. LordOfPens (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

This last reply came after I opened the WP:DRN discussion due to the breadth of this editing pattern. All further discussion should take place there. (It is listed under "User talk:LordOfPens") lethargilistic (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Free software movement

I've created this category, please help to populate. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Free and open-source software movement

I have added alt name free and open-source software movement' to the lead, but I am having second thoughts. I wonder if free and open-source software movement is a distinct topic in need of stubbing or should it be discussed here. I am familiar with the free software vs open software debate, but I think related literature on the movement often talks about one free and open-source software movement, of which both the free software movement and open-source software movement are parts. GBooks for "Free software movement" gives about 5k hits ([1]), "open-source software" just a little less, about 4k ("https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22Free+software+movement%22#tbm=bks&q=%22open-source+software+movement%22"), and "free and open-source software movement", about 1k ([2]). Open-source software movement redirected to Open-source software, but movement =/= software, just like free software =/= free software movement, through that article does discuss open software movement a bit in its history (Open-source_software#End_of_1990s:_Foundation_of_the_Open_Source_Initiative). So I have the following questions to the community:

• where should Open-source software movement redirect to? Here? Open-source movement? Or should it have its own, new article?
• where should free and open-source software movement redirect to? Should it have its own, new article?

I wonder how much content of the current free software movement and open-source software needs splitting/rewriting because of this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You can educate yourself on the matter via the FSF's website. As to your question, "free and open source software movement" should not be its own page because such a movement does not exist, nor does at least one of the two relevant movements wish to be lumped together. However, regarding software itself (not movements), there is the concept FLOSS, which is meant to be a neutral term to refer to both types of software. Paradox (talk) 03:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Re I take the point made in the reply by Template:Re but I think it's fair to say there *is* a larger movement that includes some partisans from both the free software and open source movements, as well as many who see themselves as non-partisan. One that champions the deeper software freedom principles underlying both the Free Software Definition and the Open Source Definition. I refer to that as the "software freedom movement" and this phrase is widely used by movement elders and organisations, eg:

• https://sfconservancy.org/about/board/
• https://fsfe.org/news/2020/news-20201110-01.html
• https://archive.org/details/EbenMoglen-TheFreeSoftwareMovementAndTheStruggleForFreedomOfThought

It has been used in the wild for at least a decade, eg:

https://www.greanvillepost.com/2013/10/12/the-software-freedom-movement/

It can also be found in academic papers on the subject, eg:

https://doi.org/10.1080/07317131.2018.1456849

--Danylstrype (talk) 03:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Danylstrype Clearly, there is much confusion, including the problematic situation right now, with Free and open-source software movement redirecting here but the concept not being mentioned in the text, outside List of free and open-source software organizations. This should either be mentioned here, or turned into a disambig. And it is a thing, with several hundred academic works mentioning this term: [3] _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, "free and open-source software movement" is a phrase in wide use. I'm agreeing with you that this concept needs its own page, and that both that phrase and "software freedom movement", need to direct readers to said page. The latter seems like a clearer description of what both Free Software and Open Source partisans agree on, so I'd suggest it's the more appropriate title for the article. But it's not a hill I care to die on. Danylstrype (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Dead Link Free Software in Public Agencies

I think I found the rename, but don't know enough about Peru to know for sure: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Use_of_free_software_in_public_agencies

2601:647:201:3200:848C:7682:5E31:EA30 (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Free software movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add Template:Tlx after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add Template:Tlx to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101204201527/http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Free_Software_in_Public_Agencies to http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Free_Software_in_Public_Agencies

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Free software movement. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161109200145/https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTI4Mjc to https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTI4Mjc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091223085507/http://www.zmag.org:80/znet/viewArticle/4795 to http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/4795

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposals: the issue of the separate Open-source software movement article

The issue

So as of right now there are two separate pages for "Free software movement" and "Open-source software movement".
However, in reality it's just one movement with various subfactions, subphilosophies, subpriorities and/or subaspects and an internal disagreement about where the exclusion-line of the movement lies. Having two pages ending with "movement" is misleading and is confusing to readers.

A short history:

• In 1983 Richard Stallman and the GNU Project organized, articulated and declared a movement incorporating, standardizing and unifying philosophies, practices and ideas of hacker communities calling it the "free software movement" that is about the freedom of users to use, investigate, change and redistribute software − called "free software" − that this movement produces and otherwise supports
• Later (mainly) businesses picked up some ideas, practices and tools of the movement by developing/implementing open source development practices which for them is less an ethical one than a practical one
• Present day the movement is somewhat splintered; companies try to boost their reputation as well as software-quality and -security (and thereby also the adoption of their software) by publicizing the source code under non-"free" licenses and try to make it appear as if they were leaders of this movement (and thereby also attract and motivate employees). Many free software movement people support companies doing this and thank them for at least making their source code public. Furthermore many free software movement people are employed by such companies and/or involved in some of their open-source projects.

Having two separate pages is in the interest of some companies due to the latter point (marketing etc) and those that seek to divide the movement and also make it less effective and popular due to confusion about what it is and the right terminology and association. Note that it's not my intention to factor out the participation of companies - their open/public source or even "free" software efforts are still relevant and related to the (one) movement. Nor am I trying to disassociate the movement from its philosophy, values, intentions or origins. Also take note that no individual or institution − no matter how influential to the movement, respectable and noble − decides over a true social movement. Egoism and some statements by popular figures within the movement might actually be detrimental to the movement and not reflect it properly.
There might even be outside purposeful efforts to coopt and split the community/movement to make it less effective and disruptive involved. However I think the "split" was probably just an issue of failed collective -terminology-establishment, -decision-making and -organization.
Please do have an open mind and don't comment immediately with whatever your current stance might be: instead please first read through the post and potentially rethink some things. I'm really only trying to have this important part of present-day reality described in the most accurate way here.

→ Basically it's like this: all free software also has its source-code publicly available, software that only has its source code made public but isn't using a FOSS license makes it more "free" but not as free as members of this movement would like to have. The movement is like a large stream with branches and flooded areas. The definition of "open" in this context is key but it's not really(/necessarily) what's being addressed here and now. Please also see the sources below.

My suggestion for resolution

I suggest to:

• merge relevant parts of open-source software movement into here
• merge relevant parts of open-source software movement into Open-source software development
• redirecting open-source software movement to Open-source software development
• potentially renaming this page to Free and open source software movement or Free, open source software movement, The free/open source software movement or Open-source movement (software)

There could also be new subsections. (e.g. "Aspects", "Extents of software freedom", "Philosophies", "Advantages", "Values", "Free software", "Licenses and terminology", "'Free' vs. 'open'" or alike)

For an ideal, long-term solution I'd like to note that "open" in and of itself does not have to include any non-free licenses. Instead people could start to distinguish between "open" source (free) and "public" source (non-free) code. Using the term "free software" is highly problematic as people will keep associating it with free as in free beer/free of charge while "open source" is a more popular term that is more widely understood and typically also refers to what is meant with "free software". However while the term "open" seems to be more accurate people have to use the term "free" to distinguish themselves from this "open source but not free"-model.

Sources

Template:Quote ~

Template:Quote ~

Template:Quote ~

Template:Quote ~

Template:Quote ~

Template:Quote ~

Template:Quote ~

Template:Quote ~

Template:Quote ~

Template:Quote ~

Template:Quote ~

Template:Quote ~

Template:Quote ~

Template:Quote ~

Template:Quote ~

Template:Quote ~

Template:Quote ~

Template:Quote ~

Notified WikiProjects, communities, users

• WikiProject Free Software | Date: 2017-07-11
• WikiProject Open | Date: 2017-07-11
• Merge templates on the Free software movement, Open-source software movement and Open-source software development articles | Date: 2017-07-11
• Talk-page entries on Talk:Free software and Talk:Open-source software | Date: 2017-07-11

---

Let's please have this important discussion now: please do participate with arguments, relevant information, relevant suggestions and your opinions. Thank you.

--Fixuture (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• oppose merge - perhaps it could be confusing for readers if we merged the two articles into one. These movements are rather separate and use different strategies and governing entities. --Gryllida (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Template:Ping Can you produce some quotes and sources to back up your opposition? MartinPoulter (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

California Kidd -- I oppose the merger as well. These are two different issues Free Software vs. Open-source Software.

Free software implies that there will be no license or a very brief license which generally states there is no license. This license is offered without any requirements or future obligations. You may use the software to create a software empire, like Microsoft, incidentally, other tech companies did just that for Microsoft.

Absolutely each word of this paragraph is complete bollocks and the opposite of what is correct. --87.79.180.142 (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

However, an Open-source license implies that the purpose of the license is to perpetuate the open-source software movement.

Absolutely each word of this paragraph is complete bollocks and the opposite of what is correct. --87.79.180.142 (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

If you read the license you will see code requirements. Whether they stand in court or not is not the most important, but instead the continuation of the movement is the purpose of the license. This may be considered good or bad because of continued support for the product or feelings of continued interference.

19 July 2017: 1:14pm pst — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaliforniaKidd (talk • contribs) 20:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

That's not the case. In fact, I think you'll find "open-source" advocates are less likely to use copyleft licenses. Eman235/talk 20:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I also wonder where User:CaliforniaKidd is getting this information, which is easily contradicted. Just look at the long list of free software licences. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

This proposal is based on false premises. Some of the literature cited includes the same misconceptions, which has indeed een part of the problem. However, one need look no further than the FSF's own site to refute the opening statement "So as of right now there are two separate pages for "Free software movement" and "Open-source software movement". However, in reality it's just one movement". --

"We are not against the Open Source movement, but we don't want to be lumped in with them. We acknowledge that they have contributed to our community, but we created this community, and we want people to know this. We want people to associate our achievements with our values and our philosophy, not with theirs. We want to be heard, not obscured behind a group with different views. To prevent people from thinking we are part of them, we take pains to avoid using the word “open” to describe free software, or its contrary, “closed”, in talking about non-free software."

In light of this, the proposal should probably be closed soon. Furthermore, the idea that "free software" is the more ambiguous term is not necessarily obvious. In fact, "open source" being too ambiguous is one of the listed reasons the Free Software movement avoids the term. Paradox (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Of course NO merger here! The Free Software Movement is something different than the concept of Open Source, which, is no movement at all, but a technical term. --87.79.180.142 (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this proposal. Their philosophies are very different. The free software movement is concerned in giving freedom to the users of a software, because they believe it is the right way to do. They want to revive the hacker culture. The open source movement, on the other hand, uses the benefit of giving freedom to the user to further improve one's software. They aren't however obligated to give the freedoms, as can be seen in Google, who commonly uses the fruits of the FLOSS community to create nonfree/closed source software. Merging these two movements in one article is like merging the fork and the original in one article. im temtem • hOI!! • fsfdfg 11:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Open source software movement could redirect to OSI as well. I think the title of Free software movement should stay the same, we already have History of free and open-source software.Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

California proposal

The source for the proposed law is a news article from 2002 about an advocacy effort. I can't find any other coverage so I assume no bill was ever actually introduced in the legislature. Is this notable enough to remain in the article? I'm leaning towards no, but curious to hear other perspectives. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Couldn't find any information on , but I'm not sure if it's the right place to look. Internet is quiet, too. I'm going to remove the information. – K4rolB (talk) 11:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Richard Matthew Stallman2.jpeg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Removal of "Stallman and Torvalds" subsection

Regarding latest edit by @Lavendirt: while I generally welcome those changes, I would like to contest the removal of "Stallman and Torvalds" subsection. It described an element of the split between pragmatic and ethical proponents of FLOSS and two main characters on both sides. I think it is relevant to context. If it does not warrant the separate subsection, it could be a part of "Open source" subsection. – K4rolB (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks so much for the feedback on my edit! While drafting the edit, I was unsure where to place the Stallman and Torvalds subsection so I removed it, but I agree that it could work well being part of the "open source" subsection. I mainly wanted to address the repetition in "Subgroups and Schisms" with my edit. Hope this helps! Lavendirt (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)