Talk:Open-source license

Template:Tmbox[[Category:Template:GA/Topic good articles|Open-source license]] Template:WikiProject banner shell

Untitled

While software in the public domain may conform with the principles put forth by the open source community (assuming the source is available), this article aims to deal with licenses considered to be open source (and specifically with those approved by the Open Source Intitiative). Since public domain software is under no license, I removed it from the list. -- Stephen Gilbert

---

No. Open source licenses do not have to be approved by the OSI to be open source or legitimate. There were many open-source licenses before the OSI, and many in use now that are not OSI approved. Please don't conflate the two. The article is correct in its statement that the OSI-approved licenses are just one subset of those available. CC0, for example, qualifies as open source and is GPL-compatible, but does not have official OSI-approval (as of right now. Not sure if approval has been sought.) --1typesetter 08:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Public domain software is explicitly approved as "open source" by the OSI, and it is listed along with other licenses in their own literature, so I've put it back. --LDC

They seem to be awfully quite about PD software over at OSI. I was halfway through a response saying how I couldn't find any references to PD software on their webpage, when I came across the change history of the Open Source Definition: 1.2 – added public-domain to clause 10., and 1.4 – Now explicit about source code requirement for PD software. It isn't, however, listed on their "approved licenses" page, which threw me off. And so, your revision stands. I'll just add that the source code must be available. -- Stephen Gilbert

I think we should create a seperate page for the list because in my point of view, it seems that the list is the biggest part of the article and it seems that attention has been made to that and not the rest of the article, i suggest it becomes a list --Saint-Paddy 22:48, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Various incorrect assertions

The article currently states "Some open source licenses only permit modification of the source code for personal use or only permit non-commercial redistribution." This is not true: no open source license has such restrictions (if it does, it's not open source). Also, it is not true that "most" free software licenses require sharing of source code (only a few of them do). In fact, the set of free software licenses is almost exactly the same as the set of open source licenses; there was one edge case once, in a rarely-used license if I remember correctly, where it could maybe be said to be one but not the other. In normal practice, though, any license that is a free software license is also an open source license, and vice versa. No citations are given for the aforementioned and other incorrect assertions in the article; the external references do not support them. IMHO it just needs a complete rewrite. I'm sorry I don't have time to do it, but I wanted to at least drop a note here that this article needs work. --Karl Fogel 20:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Comparison Link broken

When I tried the link to the comparison of open source licenses, it did not work. May be a transient error, but if it persists an alternate link should be found, or it should be removed --12.28.106.123 13:58, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Solaris and open source

I've removed two references to Solaris, one because it was obsolete and the other because it wasn't clear why it was there at all.

The first was under "Non-OSI source licenses". Sun briefly had a non-OSI release of some Solaris 8 source but that's long gone. The Solaris end-user license does not confer access to source.

The second was

Some software licenses define an open standard basis and may or may not be similar to open source, like some versions of Solaris and PGP.

If this means "source code has been released that itself defines an open standard" that doesn't fit Solaris, since Solaris is based on open standards, not the other way around. Using it as an example here also opens a can of worms as to whether Solaris itself is open source, or just shares a code base with the open-source OpenSolaris project; I don't think it's worth taking this article down that path when better examples must be available. So, I changed the line to only refer to PGP. --NapoliRoma 00:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge into comparison of free software licences?

I just found an article which contains the content of list of FSF approved software licences and this article, and the data is even formatted nicely. Seems like a good idea to merge these two articles into comparison of free software licences. Yes, no? --Gronky 12:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes Adleecya Graham (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Creative Commons, etc?

I often wonder, and I guess many other do to, why the creative commons licenses aren't open source. I recognise that this is a page about OSI stuff, but it would be useful to have a section detailing why other major free licenses aren't approved by OSI, especially creative commons licenses. --210.14.103.34 (talk) 11:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why there hasn't been an OSI approval - maybe it has simply never been suggested , but some CC licenses are indeed open source - fsf thinks so; for instance - http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses - lists CC-BY and CC-BY-SA as free. Their definition of free is virtually identical to OSI criteria, so I doubt OSI would have a differing conclusion Aryah (talk) 01:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The CC didn't want to compete with the OSI and so they discouraged the use of CC licenses for source code. With the recent advent of CC0 for source code that has perhaps begun to change. --1typesetter 08:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Flaw in Export Regulations Clauses

As far as I know, no much-used OS License, and only one or two OS derived licenses for government agencies or corporations, takes explicit and easily understood notice of the following situation: a U.S. based software originator transfers OS material, under an OS License, to a party in a 2nd country (neither the U.S. nor a U.S. Export Regulations proscribed country.) This 2nd party then transfers the same or modified material, still under the OS License of origin, to a 3rd party who is a resident or a citizen. The 2nd party is not constrained by U.S. Export Regulations.

A few of the much-used OS Licenses implicitly forbid this 2nd->3rd party transfer, but the language is so indirect that most 2nd parties would either miss it completely or fail to understand it.

Why would anyone care? Perhaps because the 1st party would have violated U.S. Export regulations. But to my mind more importantly: because in order to grow the OS movement and expand its scope in a productive way, some developers and OS community folks would like to engage government and corporate entities in the OS movement. These entities are not likely to come in unless they can fully satisfy U.S. Export Regulations, both because they provide static targets for litigation under those regulations, and because they are likely to believe that their own clientele and potential development contributors may wish to have, at one and the same time, the greatest freedom in their contributions, and a clear commitment that their contributions will not violate the intentions of the regulations.

For those that do care, I would appreciate any comments, or suggestions as to the minimal but easily understandable additions or edits to existing OS Licenses that would clear the flaw. Schwenn (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Article talk pages aren't intended for use in discussing the subject matter in itself. However, in this case I think you're mistaken. The issue is explicitly addressed by the GPL, which says that any distribution restrictions over and above those in the GPL mean a revocation of the right to use or distribute the code at all. This is why until recently any cryptographic code in free software was developed and held outwith the US. If you have further questions on this issue I'd advise you to seek expert advice. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Categories

I resynced the categories with the OSI (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/category). It is important to remember that we must follow their lead on the categories (if we are to categorize at all). Anything else would be original research. Superm401 - Talk 05:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

libpng license

The current status of the libpng license - referred to on the page as the "libpng/zlib license" is unclear because of the addition of the UCITA clause to the license around 2000. I suggest a new category is required - "modified versions of OSI approved licenses", or something like that.

Jbowler (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Open source license → Open-source license — like Open-source software — Neustradamus (✉) 19:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Unless it's a trade name (in which case the "s" in "source" should be capitalised), the normal English grammar rules should apply. Wikipedia is not required to use bad grammar unless it is specifically intended. That doesn't appear to be the case here. — AjaxSmack 05:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Add'l info: WP:HYPHEN notes that hyphens are used "to link related terms in compound adjectives and adverbs." This is standard English usage on both sides of the pond (e.g., see Betty Schrampfer Azar. Understanding and Using English Grammar. 2nd ed. p. 203.) The Open Source Initiative organization follows this usage when the term is used as an adjective as it is used in the titles here ("...all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.", "Therefore we forbid any open-source license from locking...") — AjaxSmack 17:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

biased

I do not understand how to find and us those bracket boxes. Someone please add a bias bracket box. This article is flat out wrong it is so biased. Open source does not automatically mean free. Companies can and do release source code while still charging for licensing and releasing the software under proprietary licenses. Open source is opening up the code to customers and the public. Free licensing is allowing end users to modify and distribute the program. One does not automatically equal the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.234.225 (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide the references for the use of the term 'open source' that follow your definition? Because this isn't how the terminology evolved (or how I've ever seen it used). See History of open source . Sources there name the exact participants , date and motivation of the exact session where the term was created (open sourcing of Netscape - now Firefox etc) and it was precisely a conscious rebranding of free software. I will remove your NPOV template - but if you still feel its biased after reading about the term, please reinsert it. Aryah (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

But speaking of bias is it fair to say that identifying free and open source licences as the same is just a common misconception and a confusion propagated by free software advocates? the article itself notes the 'significant overlap' of the two categories, and the overlap is frankly more than significant, the lists differ in only a few cases, and the definitions of the two organizations don't differ in criteria for approval? Won't edit this just yet, but I might try softening the rethoric of that paragraph unless there are objections. Aryah (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't really add on to the previous discussion but I find that the way the article currently reads seems biased, primarily the "benefits of open-source" section. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for open-source software, but the way that section is written makes it feel really pro-open-source, without writing the disadvantages. I'm thinking either adding a "disadvantages" section (which would be hard for me personally because I can't think of any) or just removing the benefit section entirely. It could just be me though so I dunno. eva2pare^[talk] 19:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Wait, why in the world was this section changed? The unsigned IP above is clearly wrong, based on the history discussed by Aryah above. Daniel J. Hakimi (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

distinguish tag

I am unsure if the distinguish tag should be included as it implies a strong distinction which is not supported by the article. The few sites addressing the difference between free software and open source tend to only claim a very minor difference in approved licenses. This makes me wonder if the tag doesn't do us a disservice by strongly proclaiming in the top that the two types are not to be confused with!. I am personally going to sleep on it for a bit before doing any change to it. Belorn (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Decided against having the distinguish tag, given how WP:distinguish describes how the tag should be used. The relation between Open source licenses and Free software licenses should instead be mentioned in the lead. Belorn (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Intro is misleading

I think the opening paragraph should make it clear that open source licenses are commonly found on works which are not open source. At this point, you can find Apache 2.0 and BSD licenses in the legal notices of hundreds of millions of products that run proprietary software. Sure there might be some version or part of the software that was at one time open source, but, for the most part, but it doesn't mean the version the user has on that device is open source.

Maybe we could say something along these lines:

An open source license is a statement or document provided by the copyright holder of work that grants recipients of the work permission to copy, modify, and redistribute the work. the term "open source license" is itself, misleading, as it is common to find open source licenses attached to proprietary (non open source) works. Most open source licenses specify some conditions along with the permissions they grant to users. The most common condition found in open source licenses is the requirement to preserve certain legal notices, such as copyright statements and a copy of the license itself. Some open source licenses also have conditions placed on distribution of the work that require you to make available to recipients of the work a copy of the human readable source code. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuagay (talk • contribs) 20:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

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

"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) 17:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Some Proposed Changes

Hello, I am employed by Boston University's Fineman & Pappas Law Libraries. After reviewing this Wikipedia page, I believe that information from one of our faculty's scholarship might provide a valuable addition to this page. I would appreciate it if this requested edit could be reviewed.

Add the following lines (in bold) to second paragraph: However, open-source licenses may have some restrictions, particularly regarding the expression of respect to the origin of software, such as a requirement to preserve the name of the authors and a copyright statement within the code, or a requirement to redistribute the licensed software only under the same license (as in a copyleft license). There has previously been debates about whether open source licenses, which permit copyholders to use, transfer, and modify software, have adequate consideration, should be viewed by the courts as legally enforceable contracts. While some academics have argued that open source licenses are not contracts because there is no consideration, others have argued that the significant societal value provided by the role that open source licenses play in promoting software development and improvement by facilitating access to source code offers adequate consideration.

Cf2022 (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Cf2022

Examples?

The article should contain at least a brief mention of the most prominent/common examples, MIT, GNU, etc., similar to what is at Free software license#Comparison. Caleb Stanford (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC) Talk:Open-source license/GA1

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Please remember to tag redirects that you create per WP:REDCAT.

voorts (talk/contributions) 01:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Subtle pro-open source bias

"This offers protection against proprietary software consuming code without giving back." and more in the "Limitations" section. The entire point of free software is that it's reusable, and as the text admits, proprietary uses are often following the licensing terms. It would be more in keeping with NPOV to state that open-source licensed software is often reused in proprietary projects, that this has benefits for the proprietary side, and is criticized and seen as unfair by some open-source contributors. Indeed the "Limitations" section could be split into, say "Use in proprietary software" and the content about trademarks possibly moved up in the article where trademarks were introduced. (t · c) buidhe 04:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Another issue: copyleft licenses like the GPL also disclaim liability. (t · c) buidhe 01:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback; I'll get out sources and address more of this later in the week, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It's revised now. Thanks again, Template:U. Also, have you seen free license and free software license? "Free license" should probably redirect to "free software license", but I'm not sure what the scope of that article should be as it almost entirely overlaps this one. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the free software and open source license articles should be merged because practically all free software licenses are also open source and vice versa. I think free license /open license includes non-software licenses, such as Creative Commons or open data licenses. (t · c) buidhe 20:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Free software license in lead

Template:Reply to, you removed this setence from the lead, "Template:Tq"[1] This reflects reliable sources even if it may sound confusing. The book-length sources cited in the article like St. Laurent (2004) use the terms to mean the same thing consistently. In addition to the already cited sources, check out these that specifically address definitions:

• "Template:Tq"[2]
• "Template:Tq"[3]
• "Template:Tq"[4]
• "Template:Tq"[5]
• "Template:Tq"[6]

Feel free to suggest wording for the lead that better summarizes this point, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The sources do not support that at all, they speak to this fact directly. The colloquially represent a very similar sets, but strictly not identical sets of licences.

"Technically, the former term refers to licenses confirmed by the Free Software Foundation as meeting the "four freedoms" of the Free Software Definition (FSD, see https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html), while the latter term refers to licenses approved by the Open Source Initiative as meeting the Open Source Definition (OSD, see https://opensource.org/osd)."

Not every license approved by the OSI is approved by the FSF and vice-versa. I don't really give a hoot what language is used here, but saying bluntly they're "the same thing" is wrong. Nickelpro (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Template:Reply to Regarding this edit,[7] Datamation is not a blog. The added source is odd. It's from a 2005 symposium. There is broken english and apparent confusion in the abstract, "Template:Tq" It also doesn't contradict the removed source, as it still talks about the certification process and not two different categories, "Template:Tq" The edit places undue weight on minor differences between the FSF and OSI (WP:UNDUE). For example, "many licenses" could be confusing for someone with little background on the subject. All major FOSS licenses have been approved by both groups (GPL, LGPL, MIT, BSD, Apache, etc.). Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

What does it matter if all "major" licences have been approved by both groups? What matters is there exists a distinction, and both first party and academic sources support this distinction. There's nothing WP:UNDUE about facts, and WP:UNDUE doesn't support stating false claims. I dislike the "let's just bring a bunch of sources to bear on obvious facts" style of talk-page debate, but here we go:

• • Template:Tq
  • Template:Tq
  • Template:Tq
• • Template:Tq
  • Template:Tq
• • Template:Tq

Sources that wrangle in any detail with the two definitions say there exist practical distinctions and that the OSI licenses represent a super-set of the FSF licenses. The phrase they are "the same" is wrong. It's your Good article, and I'm not attached to any particular phrasing or source, but that line doesn't belong anywhere in the article (which is why I originally just blanked it instead of rephrasing).

If the difference is truly so superficial, then this should be a merge discussion for this article and free software licence.

Nickelpro (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

"Template:Tq" to whom? Reliable sources largely treat them as synonyms. "Template:Tq" yes, it would be possible to write factual and verifiable material this is still undue as described by Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Bahn and Dressel (2006) give the BSD license as their example of something that is an open-source license but not a free software license. The modified BSD license has been approved by the FSF^[8] and the OSI.^[9] Salter (2014) and Perry (2010) are still talking about which organization has approved which license and endorse which criteria. The Free Software Foundation emphasizes a difference.[10] The OSI says "'Free software' and 'open source software' are two terms for the same thing: software released under licenses that guarantee a certain specific set of freedoms".[11] WP:RS say there are three directly related sets of criteria to define the subject. The article should summarize that for readers, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

"Template:Tq", you're correct of course, my point is simply that there factually is a difference, saying otherwise is false, and WP:UNDUE does not justify falsities, only not presenting all the minutia of the truth. It is acceptable to make no claims about the nature of the relationship between open source and free licenses because the differences are minute, but it is not acceptable to state no such differences exist.

All that said, I'm spent on this. If you're committed to the old wording have at it, I won't revert or tweak whatever you decide on.

Nickelpro (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I've posted the currently cited source to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for outside opinions. I'll hold off on editing this article for a couple of days until that discussion is archived, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)