Talk:Open source vs. free software

Stub
Why is this article marked as a stub?- David Björklund (talk) 11:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I was actually wondering the same thing. I think it contains too much information to be considered a "stub", and I'd support removing the tag. – Mipadi 14:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I removed the stub. But I can agree that the article could in many ways be improved. So let's discuss that instead. - David Björklund (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Improving the article
Let's discuss ways that we can improve this article. One thing I've thought about is: - David Björklund (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sources. We don't have any sources cited (except the numbers from Computer Economics). This is quite bad when we, for example, states that "according to the Free Software Foundation (FSF), the open source movement is philosophically distinct from the free software movement". Where do the FSF write that?

mabe this can be find in their documents i remember a letter by stallman responding to someone that said that said open-source instead of free software i'll try to find some more serious documents 00 tux 01:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ is a good place for searching sources 00 tux 01:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

here:http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html if you deleted things about this point you can now bring them back 00 tux 01:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I completely rewrote the article, incorporating material from the existing article as I felt appropriate. I deleted "things about this point" (I deleted things about everything), but I kept the core of the point (I believe). If you think I screwed up, then, as always, feel free to edit the article. RussNelson 01:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Gratis/Libre?
If people valued the lower cost and reduced dependence to vendors in that poll in the article, wouldn't that mean they value gratis more than libre (contrary to what the article states)?

Reduced dependance to vendor is achieved with the avalibility of the sources that permit to fix bug and easely maintain software(=>cheaper) The problem is that if the patches aren't sent upstream there will be less dependant but still dependant on a company Open source and free software is usualy cheaper but not automaticaly(i ever heard of any examples...) if they aren't cheaper they normaly are in the long term(for example due to migration or developement cost) 00 tux 01:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It now misrepresents Open Source
I'm a little frustrated by the constant insertion of a point of view into this article. I WILL insert neutrality back in unless somebody else does it before me. Open Source is not a distribution method, or simple source availability, or a quality control method. It is another way to sell freedom to people. If you don't like that, tough! RussNelson 18:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Wrong definitions about Open Source
The article says: "Open Source says nothing about the freedom to modify and redistribute, so it is being misused by people who think that source access without freedom is sufficient." But the Open Source Definition in http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php talks about "Free Redistribution" and "The license must allow modifications and derived works". -- unsigned.

It's saying the phrase "Open Source" is being "misused", not the Open Source Definition. --64.222.124.202 21:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete
This article duplicated material at open source software and the distinct copy belongs in the corresponding section on open source software. Perhaps, this will ease the maintenance of this information and therefore improve its quality. I tried my best to tie up loose ends resulting from this move, but there may be more to be done, including moving the discussion on this page to Talk:Open-source software. We'll then need to finally delete this page using WP:AFD. --71.192.61.193 22:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There is an article at Alternative terms for free software which focuses on this. Anything from this old article that is not in that article, should be added. Gronky 12:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There is related discussion on moving related material at Talk:Open-source software --69.54.29.23 16:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)