Talk:Free and open-source software

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Naga Sravani Dasari, Nehanalla9, Lunchmeat30.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Move to FLOSS
It would be better to move this page to FLOSS instead of being under the FOSS name. FLOSS is more neutral as it clearly marks the differences between free, open source and price. Filiprino (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe that FOSS is the WP:COMMONNAME here. While I've nothing fundamentally against Richard Stallman (and even exchanged emails with him a very long time ago, providing patches for some bugs in Emacs and other GNU things, before GNU was so widely known), I see FLOSS as being more something which is pushing his philosophical and political agenda.  There are certainly things to be admired about what RMS & FSF have achieved, and their enduring commitment to software freedom, but many of their positions are loaded with POV to varying extents.  FLOSS and FOSS asserts that FLOSS is more neutral, but it is from a non-neutral source which clearly states that neutrality is not one of their goals in the same article.  I see FLOSS as marginally less neutral because of that, although that does not really matter here.  The key thing is which is the more common or widespread usage, which I believe is FOSS.  Can you supply evidence that FLOSS is more commonly or widely used than FOSS in neutral (i.e. not FSF or similar) sources?   Murph 9000  (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think FLOSS is a better title for this page than FOSS because:
 * 1) It actually includes FOSS
 * 2) It eliminates any ambiguity. I don't think removing ambiguity means helping one side! If anything, it would even things out
 * Actually, I think libre removes ambiguity for both sides, because, sadly, the open source term has been co-opted and is used for a lot of things that have nothing to do with software (like Open-source intelligence) as well as its opposite, proprietary software itself (see openwashing)! So libre, exactly for the reason that it's a very specific term lifted from French/Spanish uncommon in any other field than tech, helps disambiguate both open source and free software, because when you see it, it's clear and unmistakable that we are talking about FSF and OSI compliance, which is the original intent of FOSS.
 * I would add that FLOSS is more in line with the original *NIX geek culture than FOSS. While both are valid English words, I would argue foss is a very uncommon English word while floss is a very common English word. It also evokes an image which makes it funny (dental floss), like many other *NIX acronyms (like GNU itself or WINE or LAME).
 * Lastly, it's very hard to measure which acronym is more used exactly for the reason that "floss" is a common word. You can't really use Google Trends because "foss" only refers to FOSS but "floss" refers to both FOSS and dental floss. But, if you can take the word of a random anonymous Wikipedia user, I think that even if I believe FOSS to be the more widespread term, lately I've been seeing a more widespread usage of FLOSS than before and there are both peer-reviewed scientific articles and public administrations using FLOSS, so it is not by any means an obscure term.
 * For these reasons, I agree that this page should be FLOSS instead of FOSS. 93.40.195.166 (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

FLOSS vs. FOSS 2000-2019 on Google ngram viewer

not NPOV/original research
these statements are not NPOV and/or constitute original research: "By defying ownership regulations in the construction and use of information − a key area of contemporary growth − the Free/Open Source Software (FOSS) movement counters neoliberalism and privatization in general.[97]" "By realizing the historical potential of an 'economy of abundance' for the new digital world FOSS may lay down a plan for political resistance or show the way towards a potential transformation of capitalism.[97]" seems fine to attribute statements like this to third parties, but as written they look like statements of fact, when they are opinions/analysis that emerge from the page authors. They should either be referred to via quotations from third parties, or removed. there are other statements of this sort on this page that have similar problems. Mr H3vnu83987 (talk) 13:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

how is "Infringes on user's civil liberties and human rights" a drawback of FOSS to proprietary software?
this may be a problem with my understanding of english language, which is not my mother tongue. all the paragraphs in "drawback to proprietary software" describe disadvantages of FOSS compared to proprietary software.

Security and user-support, Hardware and software compatibility, Bugs and missing features, Less guarantees of development, Missing applications, Technical skills and user-friendliness all list things where FOSS is at a disadvantage.

as a result, it looks like the phrase "Infringes on user's civil liberties and human rights" is also talking about a disadvantage of FOSS compared to proprietary software, as in "FOSS would infringe on users rights" whereas proprietary software would not. a careful reading of that paragraph makes clear that this is not the case. the paragraph is instead talking about a disadvantage of proprietary software, and an advantage of FOSS.

given that all other paragraphs in this section are about FOSS disadvantages, i feel that this paragraph about human rights is better placed in the section above as an advantage of FOSS.

i found this issue because i had asked my team to research FOSS so they could learn about it, and when i asked them "what are the disadvantages of FOSS" they came back with the answer that FOSS infringes on human rights. 61.187.123.141 (talk) 06:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've removed the contradictory section. The editor who put it in probably misinterpreted the "Drawbacks to proprietary software" section as "Drawbacks of proprietary software". In any case, the content is already covered at . Thanks for bringing up this issue! —  Newslinger  talk   16:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Major contradiction between GPL'd software being linked here as FOSS and the opening sentence
"Free and open-source software (FOSS) is software that is both free software and open-source software[a] where anyone is freely licensed to use, copy, study, and change the software in any way" -- The GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) does not freely allow one to use the software in any way, as it prohibits not only using it in proprietary software, but prohibits any changes or additions you make from being used in proprietary software. So it even prohibits your changes from "being used in any way." There are GNU GPL'd pieces of software all over Wikipedia that are linked to this article in their opening sentence. They should either all be removed as being "free and open source," or this article should be modified to state that FOSS can cover both "free in any way," and, "not free in every way" licenses. 2601:18B:8200:3AE:5170:1738:CC62:F931 (talk) 10:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * FOSS has a definition. If the software that links to this page is saying they are FOSS and they are not, then the edits need to go into those articles, not this one. GimliDotNet (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * But Wikipedia's definition is sourced back to the GNU Project, which does not actually support that "in any way" includes using it in proprietary software. The site referenced doesn't even use the words "in any way" (though they do use "for any purpose") but as this use is meta (it is not a use of the output of the program but instead wraps the software up in a conceptual package and uses that) this purpose isn't necessarily being included by the reference source.  So it isn't necessarily defined by the absolutes of |in any way| or |for any purpose|; and so, for example, banning its use in murder may not conflict with it being "free."  The wording of the definition as it stands right now reads as an absolute, though; so we have, "If it isn't permissible to use it in murder it is not Free and Open Source Software."  So perhaps it needs to be more accurately defined to include what freedoms can be disallowed while still being considered, "Free."  Basically, the underlying issue is the philosophical one of: "An absolute 'free' is paradoxical, for it must contain the freedom to contradict itself." 2601:18B:8200:3AE:7936:B754:B35A:FB0F (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Source 79 " Vaughan-Nichols 2009." is invalid
In the table under "Adoption by governments" it cites "In February 2009, the United States White House moved its website to Linux servers using Drupal for content management" to #79 links here: https://www.pcworld.com/article/174746/obama_invites_open_source_into_the_white_house.html

This page no longer exists & I'm not able to find a similar article on the pcworld website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.33.245.11 (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

It's available on the Internet Archive TEDickey (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Toronto supported by WikiProject Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Open-source software and Free software into Free and open-source software
As noted, the definitions of free and open-access software are so similar that very little software would count as free but not open-access or vice versa. Having three articles results in duplication with no benefit for readers. Philosophical differences between free and open-source are appropriately covered in other articles. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This has already been discussed not just once, but twice, both of which garnered strong opposition. Free software and open source software are by definition two distinct concepts. Rehashing an old debate in this case is not constructive. For more reasons why this should not go through, please read the previous discussion. Sink Cat (talk) 02:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * These discussions are from 2008. When we have many sources saying that the software classified as open source is essentially the same set of software as that which is classified as free, there is no reason to retain three separate articles about the same topic. While free software = open source software, the free software movement is justifiably a separate topic from open-source movement. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What are these sources that say free software = open source software? ~Kvng (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * sure:
 * "Any software that is open source is also free, and vice versa."
 * "Ironically, the creation of two names [free software and open source] allowed people to identify one thing, for these two names referred to identical practices, licenses, tools, and organizations. Free Software and Open Source shared everything “material,” but differed vocally and at great length with respect to ideology."
 * "The terms “free software” and “open source” stand for almost the same range of programs."
 * "The definitions of free software and open source software largely align and essentially include the same license terms"
 * "Both terms refer to essentially the same set of licenses and software" (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Most of these acknowledge there is a difference but appear to characterize it and minimal or immaterial. I assume by the discussion here so far and previously elsewhere that we could find other sources that stress the differences. In any case, these are clearly related topics and not clearly the same topic but articles don't have to be about a single topic and the proposal to cover them both in a single article should be workable. The alternative is a lot of cross referencing and potentially repeated material in the two articles which sounds more difficult to read and maintain but already established and also workable. With two workable solutions and the history of past discussion opposing change, I doubt we will get consensus to merge here. I can go either way but will direct my effort elsewhere. ~Kvng (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The opposers have not cited any sources whatsoever but ok. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I found a third additional prior discussion. But also, consensus can change, and in this case common usage of the terms may have changed since 2008. Retro  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 16:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. They're different things. Free software can be closed source, and paid software can be open source. Smirkjuice (talk) 04:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * [P]aid software can be open source. If that's meant to imply that free software is the opposite of paid software then that's completely wrong. Literally the lead of free software says Free software is a matter of liberty, not price; all users are legally free to do what they want with their copies of a free software (including profiting from them) regardless of how much is paid to obtain the program. (emphasis mine) See also . Nickps (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Free software is different from open source software. Agreeing with Sink Cat here. JetpackJackson (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So can someone remove the tags again? They immediately make it look discouraging and degrade, completely unnecessarily. As to the matter: one is a strict (?) superset of the other. Which also means that one (OSS) by definition includes stuff very much not free. So at best all you'd win is an exercise in pointless differentiation, qualification, and hedging while illuminating nobody but confusing anyone, before long yourself as well. Arguably, in practice "open source" is often a question of code availability only (what is), free software is always one of rights, licenses, the law (what should be), life and death that is, so it's an entirely different affair. Did you even read the articles? -89.245.22.9 (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You seem to be confusing open source with source-available. Open source isn't just code availability, the code must also be "open" as in usable for any purpose. Nickps (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not the same thing. There is open source software which is not free software. See https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/difference-between-free-software-and-open-source-software/  Meters (talk) 07:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose I fully agree with Smirkjuice and Meters. Sebastián Arena... Urantia three-concentric-blue-circles-on-white symbol.svg 11:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree. Free software (in this sense) means open-source, so i agree with the stance to merge free software to foss. hi, my name is Pickleishere. i like Programming, and will be mad if that is taken from me. thanks, check my talk page here -> talk 04:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support While free software and open-source software are not the same, just looking at the number of licenses that meet both the Free Software definition and the Open Source Definition one can tell they have a pretty significant overlap. In fact, comparing the two definitions directly shows just how similar they are in spirit. Nickps (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would argue that there are a lot of pairs of articles which are "similar in spirit." Should we also merge Software Engineering and Software Development? They have a pretty significant overlap, after all. I say no. Jtbwikiman (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment 'Free and open-source software' (or FOSS) definitionally seems to contain 'free software' and 'open-source software'. To me, makes an apt point that while the movements have two separate pages (free software movement, open-source movement), the topics of free software and open-source software have a high degree of overlap. The topics are similar enough that  and  both redirect to History of free and open-source software. Before October 2009, this was titled 'History of free software', but it ended up here after a variety of attempted moves (1, 2, 3) and one low-participation RM about the hyphenation.  This topic is somewhat contentious: you can see for example we have an article alternative terms for free software that presents free software as the primary term, with open-source software and FOSS being later derivations.  It seems likely to me that all three articles could be merged if sources support it, but I haven't looked deeply enough into sources to definitively say.  Retro  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 16:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Free software as a concept came first, but now open source software is more than twice as popular (Google scholar results since 2020: ) They describe the same software though. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * They don't exactly describe the same software, though.
 * The Free Software Foundation says:
 * "It is not exactly the same class of software: they accept some licences that we consider too restrictive, and there are free software licences they have not accepted. However, the differences in extension of the category are small: nearly all free software is open source, and nearly all open source software is free." Jtbwikiman (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Good point. Ignoring the large conceptual difference is limiting the success of this proposal though: they don't necessarily the same software. People often use the term open source when they mean free software. What Jtbwikiman pointed out can be solved by putting things in a subsection and clarifying all of this in the lead already as well as possibly with more details below. For example, there is research and debate on what criteria must be met before AI software can be considered free software like here (and note that they also use the term open source there). Prototyperspective (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I think your suggestion to move only Free Software (not Open Source Software) into Free and Open Source Software is appropriate for this reason. The Free and Open Source Software article is the perfect place for us to describe the subtle differences between these two concepts. Jtbwikiman (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment I would argue that 'open source' is a real life version of a WP:POVFORK, which could be retained on Wikipedia. I'd be okay with either merging or keeping it as is. PhotographyEdits (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment Free Software and Open-source software is so similar, that I believe that they should be merged. hi, my name is Pickleishere. i like Programming, and will be mad if that is taken from me. thanks, check my talk page here -> talk 00:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support: The two concepts are distinct and have important differences, but because free software is open source by requirement, 90% of the content of Free software also applies to Free and open source software. Free software can be reasonably characterized as a subsection of "open source software" given all of it is open source: it's just a subset based on a movement. I think this is the best way for Wikipedia to organize it.
 * Major caveat: Merging these long and complicated articles will be very difficult. Splitting based on other distinctions may be necessary. Proposal: maybe merge 90% of Free Software and all of Open Source into this article, but keep the Free software article and let it discuss the complexities of free software (and keep its history section?) Mrfoogles (talk) 03:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support merging Free software into Free and open-source software which are about the same thing and buidhe made two good true points that need to be considered. Nevertheless, Free software and open source software are by definition two distinct concepts but free software is a subset of open source software – keeping these distinct or instead transcluding parts of the article could be better. These aren't only Philosophical differences but fundamental and functional differences – if you can only see the code but not use or modify it then it's not truly open/free, just transparent so FOSS has a different goal and goes further than OS. I'm sure the proposal would have gone better so far if you were a bit better informed on the differences or expressed that better, and why propose merging all three when there could be just a merger of these two? Maybe a new proposal should be created for that. --Prototyperspective (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)