Talk:Commercial open-source applications

ALL ISSUES BELOW THIS ARE HISTORICAL (closed)
Rational Application Developer is marked as (1,4) in terms of models, but 4 does not appear to apply. Mik Kersten (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This was an issue that covered every listing in the table, not just Rational's. It was caused by somebody's contributed content that had been added in an uncoordinated way.  I've since reworked the content so it doesn't goof up the superscripts in the table. Davodavo (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Zend and Zmanda should be added to the list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.4.76.165 (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Added...but these are things the community should add on their own Davodavo (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Noticed that the Magento eCommerce platform is not part of the list. --Troybeno (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Added...but in future please add them on your own with the best information.Davodavo (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Bacula (www.bacula.org) and Bacula Systems (www.baculasystems.com) should be added. All GPL. Bacula Enterprise Edition source code available. No features in Enterprise that are not in "community" version. Subscriptions include software warranty, certification, support with service level agreement (SLA) and access to funded development projects. All funded development contributed back to community version. All copyrights held by Free Software Foundation Europe. 144.85.122.192 (talk) 10:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Added...please fix the details in the table if you know better Davodavo (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge? [Issue closed after one year of no response])
I notice there is both this article Commercial open source applications and Commercial Open Source Software. It isn't clear to me whether there is any distinction. If the articles shuldn't be merged the difference should be explained and links made. --LPfi (talk) 09:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm the major contributor to this article, and I also see the virtue in merging. I think some care should be taken in the merge effort, and I'm happy to put time into it -- but I have no idea how to coordinate that.  I can be reached at davofanmail in the comcast.net domain. --Davodavo 17:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this page should be renamed to "List of commercial open source software" and much of the explanation of the dual license strategy and related business strategies should be moved to a page "Commercial open source software" or better perhaps "Commercial open source business strategies". Dirk Riehle (talk) 05:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I DO see the virtue of renaming this page, but I don't see the benefit from the reader's perspective of splitting the explanatory content away from the table. I'm not sure either really stands alone. --Davodavo 02:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the term commercial open source is helpful. All open source can be used for commercial purposes. If software is issued under a license that requires payment for using it it simply isn't Open Source by the OSI definition. Equally if I make money (which I do) from commercial activities that include the use of Open Source it is "commercial open source" but then it is also just Open Source end of story. Open Source is largely about a license and commercial licensing is not Open Source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Lynch (talk • contribs) 17:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The term "commercial open source" has been used in the software industry by the vendors who are using that strategy. If there is a better term, please suggest it.  As this is wikipedia, the text is a collaboration--the more the merrier!Davodavo (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Software that requires payment for using it can very well be free and open source, eg. Red Hat Linux, etc. The criterion for being free (libre) is whether modified versions can be freely redistributed as well without accruing royalties, while the criterion for open source is whether the source code for the software is freely (again in a freedom sense) available to modify to begin with. One has to pay Red Hat to obtain their version of Linux, but that payment goes to the values they add with their product. The exact same software can be had with no payment if the user downloads it himself. In fact, this is what is done as CentOS, without any payment to Red Hat.218.248.64.142 (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A better term for the alleged "commercial open source" is "mixed source" or "proprietary open source". This terminology is used by unscrupulous vendors eager to capitalize on the cachet of "open source" without actually providing its benefits to their customers.218.248.64.142 (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

-- This "should we merge?" discussion thread has been open for nearly a year now, and nobody has ever contacted me to coordinate the writing / editing effort.

Therefore, I propose that on the one year anniversary of this conversation...if nobody contacts me we move this issue to "CLOSED" due to inaction. I can be reached at davofanmail at the domain comcast daht net (mis-spelling intentional to [hopefully] divert spam bots). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davodavo (talk • contribs) 23:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move [Issue closed after 34 days of no consensus]
Commercial open source applications → Commercial open-source applications — like Open-source software — Neustradamus ( ✉  ) 18:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion moved to Talk:List of free and open source software packages. Jafeluv (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That discussion was closed no concensus after 34 days Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion [issue closed on request of participants]
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of free and open source software packages which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 16:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That discussion was closed no concensus after 34 days Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Other Issues [issue closed after page changes]
Request for feedback (Portofino framework) [Issue Closed after 18 months of posting with no feedback]

I've written a new article about Portofino, an open-source web application framework written in Java and based on model-driven engineering.

The framework was mentioned in the "Commercial open source applications" article (as "ManyDesigns Portofino"), so I would kindly ask anybody interested in the subject to review my article and provide some feedback.

I'm keeping the article under my personal page during the review process.

Predonzani (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Determine the fifth business model
[ISSUE CLOSED AFTER MAKING REVISIONS TO THE ARTICLE PER THE REQUEST BELOW] I would definitely identified the fifth business model - the use of open source software to hardware solutions. Production equipment with firmware based on Open Source. This business model is not defined, although many companies have similar hardware solutions with an open software as firmware (Asterisk, Asus, Broadcom) --Rsashka (talk) 12:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)