Talk:Open-source model/Archive 3

multiple issues

 * 1) Lead need to be directly supported by sources or sourced claims later in the article. It reads currently as original research trying to prove a point. It try to prove this point by giving single examples to support generic claims (the "source" used to support this claim: This is increasingly being applied in other fields of endeavor, such as biotechnology.) was Open Source Drug Discovery ). example about a single open source project does not prove an increasingly trend of anything. Last, the lead is fumbling around trying to define open source to mean something outside software. Find a source that direct support that definition for that please! (see Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_22 for example attempts to do so.)
 * 2) Sections like Open source reads like editorial piece. What Economic analysis claims/story only really supporting source is that "most economists agree that open-source candidates have an information good". After that point, it rambles around the concept of zero marginal costs, brings up the social costs (and administration and enforcement costs) of copyright, and end on a "there is an efficiency argument to be made on behalf of open-sourced goods." not a single statement in all that is supported beyond the simple (related?) fact that Creative Commons have websites where individuals can file for alternative "licenses", or levels of restriction, for their works.
 * 3) Open source: Open-source culture is the creative practice of appropriation and free sharing of found and created content.. Never heard of something called open source culture, so lets look and see if anyone uses that word. First hit is Wikipedia? Oki not a good sign. You can find a discussion here at No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_22. Potential first fix could be to rename it to "Methodologies used in open source". Next, it is a really long essay style text, largely unsupported by sources. It takes up an aggressive standpoint vs "Free Culture, and proclaiming that "The idea of an "open-source" culture runs parallel to "Free Culture," but is substantively different. Free culture is a term derived from the free software movement, and in contrast to that vision of culture, proponents of open-source culture (OSC) maintain that some intellectual property law needs to exist to protect cultural producers.". Nice little opinion piece (NPOV issues?), and Free culture article has not a single hint of what is being said here. It also discuss the history of open source and make claims that open source culture is older than 1983, (see above discussion, see history section, and so on why this is wrong factually.).
 * 4) Open source. Beyond being a list (which should always be avoided see WP:NOTDIRECTORY), it has serious issues of undue weight. Beyond the software stacks being described, basically everything else is unknown to mainstream use of the word open source. Are Vores Øl really a significant subject to open source? This list of non-software use of open source might belong to its own page where the relevance of open source beer has much more weight than in the article about open source. Belorn (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hhumm... do I smell that earthy sent of a troll?--Aspro (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What a crime, I am asking that sections and lead should be supported by sources´. See above section about open statement and History of the term 2. I honestly do not know why the computer articles have a tendency to accept no citations and long essay style segments, but it should not be like that. So No - No troll. Belorn (talk) 09:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I largely rewrote the "Economic analysis" section and added examples to the intro, which may take care of some of your concerns. Definitely still needs work, especially citations. -- Beland (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * A good start, and since the main article has a few more sources that this one (through, lacking in general), maybe some of those are useable here. Also, by increasing the size of the section, it will make rewriting the still rambling unsupported parts much easier since it wont reduce the section into meaningless. The initial paragraph that talks about zero marginal cost economics is really hard to read., , and might help there, as might Yochai Benkler and Eric von Hippel.
 * The lead still need to be completely rewritten. Since the lead is trying to prove points with defining open source to be all kinds of things like philosophies, pragmatic methodologies, Historical environments, and conceptual models, it kind of fall apart everywhere without sources in it or from the rest of the article. Belorn (talk) 09:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyrighted Material Removed
I just removed a lengthy comment from 122.252.239.92 (talk) because it was plagiarized from a copyrighted web page at [ http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/rss/36DCCEFC4C0ADC18CC25711F00108477 ] or [ http://cio.co.nz/cio.nsf/tech/back-to-the-future-open-source-everything ]. Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia, and do not present it as your own work without attribution. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Definition
"In production and development, open source as a development model promotes a) universal access via free license to a product's design or blueprint, and b) universal redistribution of that design or blueprint, including subsequent improvements to it by anyone"

This is cited but I kind of disagree with it: I think it is entirely possible for an entity to release something that is open source whilst having a restrictive, non-free licence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J05HYYY (talk • contribs) 01:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Criticism?
How about a criticism section? Due to lack of proper funding, open source software is sometimes unfinished and sometimes the quality assurance is not good enough. 80.223.182.224 (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Open source
This term has a conceptual problem: it mixes up software licensing with development methodology, using a term "source model" whose meaning is unclear.

"Open source software" is a criterion about how a program is developed. If a program's source is available under a certain kind of license, then it is "open source".

There is an "open source development methodology", what ESR called the "Bazaar" model. But the two do not necessarily go together. Which one does "source model" refer to?

If a single person develops a certain program, and releases source code once a year under the GNU GPL or the modified BSD license, that program qualifies as "open source". If he never releases intermediate versions and declines to discuss its development with anyone, he does not practice the "open source development methodology", but the program is "open source" anyway.

What should be entered as the "source model" of that program?

It is also possible to practice the "open source development methodology" but release the program under licensing that is not "open source". What should be entered as the "source model" of that program?

Is "source model" really a way of characterizing licenses, or does it refer to development methodology?

--David Hedlund (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

For the moment Wikipedia obeys the open source doctrine which calls for making free software appear marginal. But this could be changed with your help. --David Hedlund (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

What do you call code that's open for viewing but otherwise fully copyrighted?
As in the section heading. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Rephrase needed
Starting in the beginning of the 2000s, a number of companies began to publish a small parts of their source code to claim they were open source, while keeping key parts closed. This led to the development of the now widely used terms free open-source software and commercial open-source software to distinguish between truly open and hybrid forms of open source

this doesn't sound right — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.140.47.65 (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It is right, see Open-source software and Free and open-source software. Mion (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Assertion
This article kind of relates to me that demands open source is a closed topic and takes the user into a ubiquitous notion that information is user affiliated. This is not true. The information is correct rather needed this pointed out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.117.16.45 (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Open source. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://linuxgazette.net/issue28/rossum.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070319051530/http://www.isca-web.org:80/english/youth/yource/thenetwork to http://www.isca-web.org/english/youth/yource/thenetwork

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 23:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Reversing the bold move of 11 March 2016

 * At 05:35, 11 March 2016‎ moved page Open source to Open-source model over redirect.
 * This appears to have been a bold move with no prior discussion
 * There are four talk page archives (e.g. Talk:Open source/Archive 4) which should move with this page, but did not
 * Open source (disambiguation) was last updated at 16:59, 22 January 2016 by a vandal. I just reverted their edit, so the version of 21:01, 18 August 2015 is current. Any page move and/or change in primary topic of this sort requires disambiguation page updates to keep the dab in sync with the article configuration
 * The page history dates to the early days of Wikipedia in 2001 (see Open source), and has undergone well over 3,000 revisions, with this being the only page move I see in the history
 * The article was stable at the title Open source for 14 years, 5 months
 * There is no consensus on what the primary topic for Open source is:
 * "Open-source model" was primary topic for 14 years, 5 months, though in its early iterations is was substantially about software
 * At 05:35, 11 March 2016 said Open-source software ("primary topic is software") (diff)
 * At 22:55, 27 August 2005 text copied/derived from "open source" (as a start) to have an article specific to open-source software only
 * At 00:13, 28 August 2005 removed sections that are obviously specific to open-source software
 * At 02:17, 29 October 2016 said Open-source movement (diff)
 * This article dates from December 2001‎ – and in all the past 14+ years it appears there have been no previous primary topic claims for this

The summary style guideline supports the idea of a broad-concept article titled Open source which has a lead section describing the open-source model and includes sections summarizing all related topics including open-source software, open-source movement and other topics listed at Open source (disambiguation). Place Main article hatnotes on each of these sections which summarize the more detailed articles.

Making one of these subtopics primary goes against this guideline, and presents an unstable configuration is more prone to edit warring and further requests to move pages. I'm reminded of human gastrointestinal tract being made the primary topic for gastrointestinal tract. Much "drama" ensued from that.

So for these reasons, I'm reverting the March 2016 move. Please use {{subst:Requested move}} to request a move of this page. See WP:RM for instructions.

P.S. I'm here because the page Open-source software turned up in Category:Articles with redirect hatnotes needing review, a category that I regularly patrol. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposal
First, as the existence of distinct concepts is not disputed, I kindly request restoring the renaming of Open source to Open-source model, keeping the former as a redirect to the latter. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Your request is reasonable, but I think there should be a broader discussion first. Though we do have many, my belief is that "open source" is understood to mean the same thing, and per WP:CONCISE we prefer titles that are no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. I believe that "open source" is sufficient, and adding "model" does little to further distinguish the topic. For example, we have free source, but not free source model. Feel free to use {{subst:Requested move}} at the bottom of this page to initiate a proper discussion. Do you need help with that? I don't intend to argue any more strongly against your proposal than I already have above. wbm1058 (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Now on a separate issue, I've cleaned-up Open source (disambiguation), and the vast majority of articles are related to open-source software. I could develop a broad-concept article (BCAC) as suggested, easily transcluding the lead of each main-article, but the BCA would end up being mostly about software. At this point I'd like to kindly ask you to reconsider my proposition that, although Open-source model is a broader concept, it remains a secondary topic, because: (1) it followed from open-source software; and (2) it is much less notable, as attested by the quantity of literature about open-source software, with open-source model appearing to be a low-quality chimera, bordering on original synthesis. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Right, I was thinking that most of that "broad-concept dab" could be merged into this article. We might be left with just a short disambiguation consisting only of the primary link to this article, and the items in the Miscellaneous section. If you cull out the "low-quality chimera" on this page, that will make the "disambiguation" items easier to find. As to making the dominant subtopic (software) the primary topic for the broader concept, can you point me to any examples of where this has been done with other topics, and that configuration has been stable over a longer term? I'd be more open to the idea if you could show me some precedents. I'm reminded of New York, where efforts to make the dominant subtopic, New York City, the primary topic for "New York", have stalled with no consensus. Yeah, and I think NYC was settled first, before any other part of the state ;0) – wbm1058 (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I can point to the historical section Open-source software and to the fact that open source beyond software is an ill-defined concept, with no clear distinction from, e.g., open collaboration, open content, etc. Take for example, the lead of open-source model: the first reference is about open-source software, the second one about open collaboration and/or open innovation, the third one about open source appropriate technology. But no source is connecting the dots -- that's original synthesis, hence the low-quality of that article. fgnievinski (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This Ngram shows the simple term "open source" is used much more frequently than "open source model". wbm1058 (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * But, is "open source" a shorthand for "open source software" or does it refer to the broader concept? fgnievinski (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I think I've nailed it: looking at dictionaries, "open source" refers either to software only or to software first: Which demonstrates that "open source" should redirect to open-source software. fgnievinski (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oxford
 * MacMillan
 * Dictionary.com
 * Cambridge


 * I understand your POV on this. This discussion reminded me of Slow movement (culture). An analogous argument would be that the primary topic for the "slow movement" should be Slow Food, as that's what started everything else, as I understand it. You can see that there have been ongoing discussions about the configuration of that topic area, as well. I'm taking a short break, and expect to revisit this page in a few days. Still think it would be better to have a wider discussion. wbm1058 (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * As there seems to be no further pending issues, could we re-reversing the bold move, please? Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * YOU are the one who made the bold move, as I already explained to you. Sorry, I had three things going at once, and I put this in third position in my priority list. Right now I'm working on my second item, having finished my highest priority. It may be several more days before I return to this item, but it's still in my queue – if you want to wait on me to take the time to further review this and fully buy into your position. My mind isn't really on this at the moment, but I think where we were at is that you had tagged the dab as a broad concept, and my thinking is that this article currently at the base name is the broad-concept article. Therefore Open source (disambiguation) is mostly a content fork of Open source, therefore most of the dab should be merged into this page. Making software the primary topic when we have such a muddy organization of the broad concept/disambiguation, is asking for trouble in my view. If you want to expedite your agenda to move first, and cleanup the fork later, as I already suggested, submit a requested move. No guarantees that will get your desired outcome, but hopefully that would draw others into the discussion. Otherwise, please be patient, and I will eventually get back to this. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I cited four references demonstrating that the primary topic of "open source" is open-source software. If you can't find fault with these sources, would you please be so kind to restore my bold move.  Thanks.  fgnievinski (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And I take back the broad-concept tagging of Open source (disambiguation); furthermore, I have no interest in cleaning-up the messy Open-source model article. fgnievinski (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * OK. I see that Britannica has one article on the topic, with an interesting final paragraph that mentions Wikipedia. And we have what, 20 articles? 30? I suppose because of our open-source culture we have more of a tendency to write on the topic. Anyone wanting a concise summary might best read Britannica's article. Right, I can't really find fault with your viewpoint, and surprisingly in spite of the volumes written over the years, it's pretty quiet here now. And your move stood for eight months without any other objections I've been. So, I'll endorse it, and properly complete the move, including the talk page archives. Sorry to keep you waiting, and thanks for your patience. wbm1058 (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ I have no strong opinion on the redirect Open source, as to whether it should redirect to open-source model, open-source software, open-source software movement (which the Britannica article hints at), or somewhere else (the disambiguation or the broad-concept). So feel free to change the redirect yourself, and if you find there's disagreement on the matter, please use WP:Redirects for discussion to resolve it. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Open-source model. 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/20150827134534/http://www.cozx.com/~dpitts/ibm7090.html to http://www.cozx.com/~dpitts/ibm7090.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20021001164015/http://www.opensource.org/docs/history.php to http://www.opensource.org/history
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120301163449/http://argonov.livejournal.com/ to http://argonov.livejournal.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071207171952/http://opencert.iist.unu.edu/ to http://opencert.iist.unu.edu/

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) 23:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)