Talk:List of proprietary source-available software

quasado
Potential future contribution: http://libregraphicsworld.org/blog/entry/quasado-opensources-gravit-web-based-design-tool Shaddim (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

False dichotomy
The introduction of this article introduces a false distinction between "commercial software" and "free and open source software". (Much commercial software is and has always been free or open source.) Could the lede please be modified to clarify the topic of the article? —Psychonaut (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree, there is no fixed dichotomy but two classes of software which might or might not overlap partly, software which was developed for commercialization (selling) and has now (and seldom before) the source-code available: "This is a list of notable software which were originally developed as commercial (and/or proprietary) software product with the source now available (in contrast to software which is developed from the beginning as free and open source software)." Also, there is rarely software which is developed for commercialization ("selling") and is open source, as this plainly seldom works. Shaddim (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand your objection. I said there is a false dichotomy, and you agreed with me that "there is no fixed dichotomy".  Yet the lede draws a fixed contrast between a "commercial software product" and "software which is developed from the beginning as free and open source".  Commercial/noncommercial and free/proprietary are two different axes upon which software may be categorized.  The introduction doesn't make it clear what the article concerns itself with. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * you misinterpret the lead, it describes what is in the list not a dichotomy. and in the list is software of varying proprietariness but wirh sourcecode -> source available or open source. Shaddim (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What you just said does not make sense; by definition the software cannot be proprietary if it is open source. And if the list is for software of "varying proprietariness" (whatever that means), why isn't the title "List of proprietary software with available source code"? —Psychonaut (talk) 09:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * See? THIS is a dichotomic interpretation. Clearly can software be proprietary (with varying degree as it's a continuum between: public domain as most free, than BSD, then copyleft, than opensource, open-source with various restrictions, shared source, half-proprietary with own licenses, full proprietary) AND open-source. See the many examples given. Only the FSF dislikes that and would like to push a pure dualistic interpretation view which fits not the reality. (Another example, is a software where the data part is proprietary but the code is GPL, free software? Half-free at best, a intermediate thing... or the strange Font exclusion clauses---)Shaddim (talk) 10:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So this page is really just a list of source-available software, regardless of whether or not (or if you prefer, to what degree) it's proprietary? In that case, why isn't the page titled "List of software with available source code"?  How does "commercial" enter into it? —Psychonaut (talk) 12:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The core point is: a software was meant as proprietary & commercial product before...and has now its sources available. Shaddim (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So just to be perfectly clear, this is a list of proprietary, commercial software for which the source code is available? —Psychonaut (talk) 11:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A list of software which was developed after the traditional and very common "commercial and proprietary" software development model, and not the open source development model, and where the source code became available, typically on end of life (on drop out of the need of commercialization via proprietary source code). Shaddim (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the explanation, though I don't see how it bears much resemblance to the title and introduction of the article. I'm having difficulty reformulating the title into something which is both succinct and accurate. Do you have any suggestions? —Psychonaut (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, what exactly is your concern with the title? Or is it more the explanation what bothers you? Currently the list is by function well separated from the other article which tries to include only free software (after whatever definition). This list should hold also all the interesting and strange fringe cases of software where the unifiying characteristic is "source available" (not getting in dirty discussions what is free and what is not). Shaddim (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Currently we have three explanations for the scope of this article: the title, the lede, and your previous message on this talk page. All three explanations make different claims about the article scope. The title defines the software in scope in static terms, and the lede and your message define it in terms of software which has undergone one or more changes in state. Let me diagram this out for you:

* Note: At least one of these two cells must be "yes".

Do you see the problem now? Unless these conflicts are resolved, it's impossible to know which software should be included or excluded from the list. Already I can see some software in the list which meets the criteria of one explanation but not the others. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The core problem is that you keep sticking to a dualistic-digital modeling of concepts... sometimes the reality lies inbetween. This inbetween situations are presented in this list not the simple and easy to categorize cases.
 * Also, we had this discussion on the article List of formerly proprietary software already, were it is unclear what the definition "former proprietary software" is (which is NOT equivalent to free software) were also no clear definition exists. Shaddim (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

* Note: At least one of these two cells must be "yes".

* Note: At least one of these two cells must be "yes".


 * Could we please confine this discussion to the issues with the current article? If you have a problem with a different article, please raise it on its own talk page.  Getting back to this one, even if what you say is true about certain characteristics lying on a continuum rather than being binary, I don't see how this addresses the discrepancy between the three different explanations of the article scope.  They still need to be harmonized.  Currently it is not at all clear what this article is for. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can't help you here as it seems you have a different vision for this list; I tried often enough to explain to you the focus and goal of this list which spans a continuum which is not describable with a "Yes/No" semantic. Please, create then a different list. regards PS: would you prefer the (clumsy) title "commercial developed software with later available source code" (see commercial software according http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/commercial+software or Commercial off-the-shelf)? Shaddim (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not that I have a different vision of the list; rather, I don't have any clear vision of the list because I don't understand your different explanations of its purpose. Maybe you're right and it's just me.  I'll see if I can get someone else to explain it to me. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As the starting point was your concern about "commercial software", where you saw some undue polarization vs FOSS, (which can be also commercial but rarely is), what about a sharpening of the title to the form of "Talk: List of commercially developed software with available source code" ? Shaddim (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a general problem with the articles: List of formerly proprietary software and List of commercial software with available source code. The latter article name does not mention software that is currently Open Software according to the Open Source definition, the first one does. The problem is that the content of both articles overlaps and does not always match the related theme of the article. Schily (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * One problem is, there is not a unique definition what "open source software" is: it spans the range from public domain, over permissive license, over copyleft, to shared source and other source available constructs. Also, sometimes OSI and FSF are in conflict, sometimes the data content is not free. In short, reality is complicated. Another question is the differntiation between softare which started and was developed with the open source methodology and softawre for which was later the source code became available. For second case, including all the license fringe cases, this list is made as first list tries to focus on "free software" (while with a wonky/vague definition). Shaddim (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you like to say here. It may be that you are in mistake. The term "free software" is unspecified as there are non-unique interpretations of the term "free", OpenSource is however a well defined term. see: Open Source definition and the GPL was originally listed there as non-free (until the FSF explained that the ambiguous parts of the GPL have to be interpreted in a way that meets the OpenSource definition). To make it more obvious: List of commercial software with available source code is a title that implies the availability of sourcecode without the freedom that is required to meet the rules from the Open Source definition. This article however also lists software that now is true OSS which thus seems to better belong to List of formerly proprietary software. Schily (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of the definitions of these two organizations, but neither of both organization has a authority of defining a term in binding form. So, despite the continously tries of FSF/OSI to control terminology, in reality these terms are used more broad and vague, which should be represented by the Wikipedia. And yes, you interprete the title "List of commercial software with available source code" right, this list is a broader umbrella then "List of formerly proprietary software" and includes all forms of open source/source available (but also the free one). Shaddim (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with the FSF is that it is a vendor and thus cannot be seen as a neutral entity for rating licenses. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is full of people that support this biased foundation. OpenSource.org on the other side is no vendor and in the past was extremely careful with statements that could be seen as advise, so there is no rating from OSI that explains which licenses are better for the community - there is just a notice on whether a license is acceptable according to the rules. Also note that the OpenSource movement is older than the Free software idea. You can verify this by cheking that Stallman took his emacs sources from James Gosling who was part of the OpenSource movement, similar to the people that initiated the USENET. If you like to make wikipedia less biased in this area, you will have a lot to do....


 * Regarding definitions of both list pages, I could live with your definition if there was an explanation at the top of both articles and if every real OSS project listed in the article List of commercial software with available source code would get a OSS tag to help to distinct it from non-OSS conforming projects. Schily (talk) 10:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I can live with both, extending the table by another fields & further clarification. But classifying software as real OSS (or not) is OR to some degree, e.g. is a game which was not developed as FOSS and later ONLY the source code was released (not the content), is this software FOSS? A indication could be that Debian would not include such game (see Freedink history). Shaddim (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Then we would need to make sure that List of commercial software with available source code becomes a true superset of List of formerly proprietary software.


 * Given the fact that the Open Source definition is a more restictive superset of the FSF definition, it makes sense to check whether a license is listed as free by the Open Source definition. I am not sure whether Debian is a useful gauge, as Debian includes non-free software and at the same time rejects free software based on irrational bashing. Note that Debian leaders explain that they are not willing to follow their written rules but rather decide on a belly based concept. A comprehensible reasoning thus seems to be better.


 * So let us add a new column named "OpenSource compatible". Schily (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the point is of having one article a superset of the other, as (among other reasons) the redundancy will result in maintenance problems. Why not make the articles disjoint? This would be trivial to do by having one article for List of formerly proprietary software and one for List of proprietary source-available software.  (This also solves the "commercial" ambiguity.) —Psychonaut (talk) 13:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've tagged this article to allow to understand the problem. Before advancing this, we would need to replace many ?'s to understand whether a project is free or not. Schily (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither of you answers to the open question that the question what is "formerly proprietary"/"proprietary" is still unclear/fuzzy/political laden (FSF). For instance if we take the FreeDink definition ("it can be added to a linux repository") several entries would need to be removed from the page "formerly proprietary" and added to the other list. Which is clearly not the "proprietary" definition currently used. Infact. I see much bigger problems/amibiguity in the proprietary terminology, than in commercial, and would like to side-step here completely, as this is a can of worms. Shaddim (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Proprietary is an inappropriate term introduced by the FSF. We better try to avoid to use it here. I guess that it makes sense to rename that article to "...formerly closed source...". Schily (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Consequently, then I would suggest that both pages got renamed: "Formerly closed-source software and now open source-software" and "Formerly commercial developed closed source software with source code available" Shaddim (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC) (edit: added "commercially developed" to limit the scope to relevant software and keep the 1 million hobby projects out)
 * You should explain your recent changes, as e.g. ksh93 and Solaris are really free. Schily (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree this was just an edit conflict, sorry. Shaddim (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It may make sense to check the "BSD" licensed projects as only the 4 clause BSD license is non-OSS (because it contains contradicting claims). Schily (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on List of commercial software with available source code. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=5494

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on List of commercial software with available source code. 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/20140507131754/http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/adobe-photoshop-source-code/ to http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/adobe-photoshop-source-code/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.blender3d.com/campaign.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.blender3d.com/members.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140330084636/http://timreview.ca/article/294 to http://timreview.ca/article/294
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120409094949/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pwwi/is_20050229/ai_mark01000244/ to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pwwi/is_20050229/ai_mark01000244
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.openmapi.org/announcements/teamxchange_released_as_open_source
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091124071311/http://www.salon.com/technology/feature/1999/04/29/mod_trackers/index.html to http://www.salon.com/technology/feature/1999/04/29/mod_trackers/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040901083834/http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing/opensource-license.html to http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing/opensource-license.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131016014106/http://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/2000101300221NWDTSW to http://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/2000101300221NWDTSW
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://community.borland.com/article/0%2C1410%2C17285%2C00.html

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) 22:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of commercial software with available source code. 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/20050302065926/http://apolyton.net/news/index.php?Category=CtP2&month=200309 to http://apolyton.net/news/index.php?Category=CtP2&month=200309
 * Added tag to https://www.droletechnologies.com/ecommerce-software
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160207000335/http://shop.highsoft.com/highcharts.html to http://shop.highsoft.com/highcharts.html
 * Added tag to http://stellarfrontier.net/sf12source.rar

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) 09:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

PC-MOS/386 v5.01 source code
The source code to the PC-MOS/386 v5.01 operating system was released a short while ago under GPL 3: https://github.com/roelandjansen/pcmos386v501