Talk:Proprietary software/Archive 2

intro paragraph pov woes
While I believe this article needs a complete rewrite to remove the deep-seeded pov, it seems completely non NPOV to describe proprietary software as the antonym of free software. That proprietary software has significant restrictions imposed on the user, and how those restrictions are enforced is most definitely not the definition of proprietary software.

It is for these reasons and more that this article is pov-laden. I'm gonna work on fixing it. Cheers. Ardent &dagger;alk &isin; 15:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Update- I've added a weak advantages section and made a first attempt at de-pov-ing the intro. Next step is to take the 'risks' section and turn into a 'disadvantages' section with a less authoratative tone, and then to revamp the terminology section.  After that the whole thing needs some good sourcing (if that isn't done along the way).  I will be back.   Ardent &dagger;alk &isin;  18:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Software cannot be "owned". Authors don't "own" books. That's not the distinction of proprietary software. The distinction is to use copyright and patent law to restrict the software. Free software uses copyright--and even patents in rare cases--to provide freedoms to use, copy and modify the software. So "ownership" can't provide a distinction here.

Your other edits to the intro are unobjectionable, although I'm not sure what specifity you are adding by using words like "closed source" or "non-proprietary software", but then objecting to giving free software as the antyonym to proprietary software. --69.54.29.23 18:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I still think the intro provides a definition to proprietary that makes it indistinct from free software. Shouldn't it? --69.54.29.23 18:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the ownership of software mistake, I meant the rights to the software. I retract my objection to giving free software as the antonym of proprietary software, my rationale when I first read it was that it read as quite anti-proprietary and I figured a good way to get rid of the POV was to remove the seemingly negative comment.  Not that I am pro-proprietary, but rather that I am pro-NPOV.  The other references were already included in the intro, I merely preserved them while trying to remove some of the pov.   Ardent &dagger;alk &isin;  18:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I wholly disagree that the intro is indistinct from that of free software. The fact that the rights owner has these additional powers over how their product can be used is a big enough difference to make it the antonym of free software.  Ardent &dagger;alk &isin;  18:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, free software is very much not characterised by the "exclusive ownership of rights by an individual or group" as far as I would interpret it, unless the group was generalized to everyone everywhere. Or am I completely missing the point? Ardent &dagger;alk &isin; 18:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

In the case of copyleft free software, copyright is indeed used by a group or individual to ensure the software remains free software. --69.54.29.23 18:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This is true, however the rest of the intro negates the possibility of copyleft free software coming under the heading of proprietary software. Additionally saying that substantial restrictions are imposed upon the user wouldn't help to differentiate proprietary from copyleft, as many people (namely proprietary distributors) would see the copyleft restrictions as very substantial. Ardent &dagger;alk &isin; 19:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the similarity in having some restrictions with free software, I'm additionally talking about the use of copyright in the same way. --Ashawley 19:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, reverse gears, I'm not even sure what we are talking about then. Originally I thought it was the new intro versus the old intro.  I'm fairly confindent that the new one encompases what the old one had in a less pov'd way.  If there's something that the intro or the article would benefit from that isn't pov and isn't included, by all means.  I think we've gotten past any need to revert to the old intro.


 * Otherwise, I'm not really sure what you mean by 'the use of copyright in the same way'. In the same way as... proprietary software?  That's not true because it's being used to promote freedom of the software as opposed to properiatary software (read property, ie owned in one way or the other be it through rights or physical ownership).   Ardent &dagger;alk &isin;  20:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've aimed at getting the nuances correct in the definitions and explaination found in the article's intro, rather than aiming for POV issues. The latter made the article less than accurate in my opinion, in addition to the confusion admitted in the discussions above. However, if there are POV issues, let them be known. --75.68.201.229 16:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to congratulate you on doing a solid rewrite of the intro. That said, the removal of headings, IMHO, makes the article look very sloppy.  I'm gonna try and separate the article into sections in a better way than "advantages/disadvantages"... because to me that seems inherently geared towards a pro/con debacle.  Ardent &dagger;alk &isin;  04:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag
Sorry to whoever removed the NPOV tag, but this article is still very one-sided, full of weasel words, and needs a re-think in terms of organisation to get rid of the inherent POV. Ardent <sup style="color:#33CCFF;">&dagger;alk <sub style="color:#33CCCC;">&isin; 09:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please remember to say what is NPOV, one-sided, and weasel wordish about the article so that others can improve it and remove the reason for the tag being added. Otherwise someone will tweak the article, ask themselves "What's wrong with this?  Nothing as far as I can see" and then remove the tag again. Gronky 09:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I originally placed a tag, but I now see that I was wrong and have replaced it with a  tag.  The article focuses on the benefits of free-course software and does not mention opposing arguments outside of two sentences, set off by the disingenuous "They claim".  The second of the two sentences is even worse, in that it closes with a claim about the expense of proprietary software.
 * The article has probably improved in this regard since earlier versions, but it still has a long way to go.
 * Look, I like the free (libre) software movement. I use quite a bit of it myself -- I'd be lost without Pari/GP, I use the GIMP and OpenOffice regularly, and I even replaced proprietary server software at my workplace with the free Apache server.  But WP:NPOV is still policy, regardless of how I feel.
 * CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Gronky, "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.". CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (*Resisting temptation to copy-n-past my above "Please remember..." comment as a reply to this copy-n-paste of the tag I'm discussing*)


 * Ok, I've done a run-through of the article (twice now) and tried to prune arguments against proprietary software from sections which are not about the good/bad of proprietary software. I've also grouped similar things and I've removed some duplicated info.  Let me know if anyone still think the POV tag needs to stay. --Gronky (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you've done an excellent job, significantly improving the article. I'll remove the POV tag myself (unless you've already taken it out).  CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. And thanks for taking the time to highlight the flaws that were in the article. --Gronky (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggest rename: non-free software
The term "proprietary software" is not well-known enough to offset people's association of the word "proprietary" with it's literal dictionary/legal meaning. Thus, people get confused about what the topic of this article is. So how about changing the title to "Non-free software"? This has the same meaning, and is accepted and also used by Stallman etc. Objections/comments? Gronky 13:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no evidence counter, but I believe proprietary software is used more often. The free software movement and communities use "non-free" a lot, because their culture is encircled around the free software definition.  That's probably not the case for the millions of non-free developers.  That would be an obtuse term to them.  It would be like a musician who says I play non-Jazz music. --207.136.219.162 19:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "Proprietary software" was coined by RMS, IIRC, so if "non-free" irks anyone due to it's attachment to The Free Software Definition, then "proprietary" would suffer the same. Gronky 13:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The use of the term "proprietary" in other contexts pre-dates Stallman coining "proprietary software" (as does the existence of proprietary software pre-dates Stallman's original distilling of the free software idea in the early 1980s). See vendor lock-in for examples of proprietary outside of software.  It's this connotation of "proprietary" that he's using, that has much larger acceptance than "non-free". --207.136.219.162 19:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Origin of closed source?
Anyone got an idea of when the term "closed source" was first used? Thanks. --Gronky 12:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Software hoarding is a separate article that refers to a single pejorative term used chiefly by one individual (RMS). It should probably be folded in and given a brief mention here. White 720 20:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * agree - that article doesn't seem likely to grow much. --Gronky 20:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Rename this article "Criticisms of Proprietary Software"
C'mon guys... This page is so heavily anti-closed source that I am now convinced that Stallman is the primary contributor.

If you would rather fix the page than change the title, here are some suggestions:

--Change the first paragraph to:

>>Proprietary software (also called closed-source software) is any software that is owned by a single person or company, who can subsequently make available (or license) the software to other people or companies. This license usually allows for full use of the software in question, but discourages (or makes impossible) modifications to the functionality of the software. It also discourages (or again, makes impossible) a code-level knowledge of the inner workings and functionality of the software.

--Relocate criticisms of proprietary software to a section called "Criticisms of Proprietary Software"

Unfortunately, this leaves us with a very small article. So we have to ask what this article should be trying to teach people. Is the purpose to:

>Point out the flaws of proprietary software >Give the advantages of proprietary software

I personally believe that the purpose should be neither. Wikipedia is supposed to maintain neutrality. Saying that putting advantages and disadvantages on the same page is neutral is akin to saying that a person who has one foot in a bucket of ice and the other foot in a puddle of lava is comfortable. The two do not, in other words, balance each other out.

That said, it seems to be accepted as "fair" to have a criticisms section of some Wikipedia Articles. Therefore, I propose that we structure the article as such:

>Definition (see above, what I would change first paragraph to)

>Examples of entirely proprietary software >>Explain what makes software completely proprietary (i.e., no free software whatsoever). >>List of 10-12 software items.

>Example of somewhat proprietary software >>Explain what makes software somewhat proprietary (i.e., proprietary software based on free software). >>List of 10-12 software items.

>Criticism of proprietary software >>Explain how free software philosophy comes into conflict with proprietary software, and leave it at that. Do not mention any specific entities. Save that for the "See Also".

>See also

The point being that we effectively change a paragraph such as:

A variety of activation or licence management systems are emerging in proprietary software that prevent copyright infringement and determine how the software is used. If the proprietor ceases to exist or for any other reason does not provide keys for activation or to unlock discontinued products, legitimate users can be unable to re-activate existing software or use other hardware.

into

A variety of license management/enforcement systems are sometimes used in proprietary software that help to prevent criminal copyright infringement and determine how the software can be used based on the terms of the license agreement between the licensor and the licensee.

In effect, we relocate the part that casts a negative light on activation into the "Criticisms" paragraph and we are left with a completely neutral, informative statement.

Tell me what you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.13.2 (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

As much as I do like free software and I use Linux myself, I agree; this article is too biased against proprietary software and needs revising. Akiratheoni 21:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I would strongly prefer revising the article to retitling it "Criticisms of Proprietary Software". CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't found time to read your whole post, but I think the necessary clarification is that this article is about the term of art used in the free software community. This isn't a dictionary definition of the noun "software" modified by the adjective "proprietary".  Maybe the intro of this article has to make that clearer. --Gronky 22:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer to cover the broad aspects of proprietary software in one article, instead of splitting this into Proprietary software (FSF), Proprietary software (hackers dictionary), Commercial software, Open source software (OSI), and so on. Sections can be added for particular definitions as needed. CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A neutral article doesn't need a criticism section. I don't see a problem with the lead:


 * So please be bold and change the article or state here what exactly you don't like in the lead. By the way I don't think rms wrote this article but surely the main authors read the philosophy section on the GNU website—which is not condemnable. --mms (talk) 11:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Strong free-software bias
This article is strongly biased towards people in the free software movement. There are more statements related to the free-software side than the proprietary-software side. This is illogical as this article is titled "Proprietary software." Both sides' opinions need to be clearly expressed. Dragon 280 (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I added a few extra headers for your convenience and to encourage editing. I really can't do these major edits myself. :( Dragon 280 (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You discuss whether this article is biased because the reader feels he doesn't want to use proprietary software. I don't think this is the right yardstick. If a software producer doesn't deliver the source he refuses his costumers to really own the software. There are also certain legal restrictions which infringe the definition of free software. With this WP-relevant definition one can easily decide if a software is proprietary or free. The proposed euphemism "commercial software" is not a solution. The user doesn't feel if a software is commercial. Commercial software could be free or proprietary. Every well known free software product is commercial software.
 * I can't agree with you that we should not write something which the reader might not like. There are wars going on—or should we call them operations to bring peace and freedom? --mms (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * He isn't claiming proprietary software is bad and therefore it shouldn't be mentioned, quite the opposite in fact. Despite your personal politics, proprietary software is not a bad thing, and the article needs to be scrapped and written from scratch to simply describe proprietary software instead of leaving this propaganda to disgrace wikipedia. -- Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Total rewrite needed
The whole article should be rewritten, the only thing the article succeed with is to clarify and amplify the stand of a single organisation (FSF). buran (talk) 10:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is about a concept that is a part of the definition of free software, not the phrase alone. --AVRS (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You are missing the whole point, this article is linked from every infobox for closed source programs. And closed source in this article is described only in negative terms. buran (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The article is good, because no one mainstream calls commercial software "proprietary software".  Therefore, there should be two articles, one on "commercial software" listing popular software that is sold across the world, and "proprietary software", talking about the Free movement's pejorative term.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.21 (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your argument is flawed, commercial software can be closed source or free/open source, just because you get the code it isnt "gratis". Also, most media have picked up the "propitary software" tag line (as launched by among others FSF) to describe software that isnt distributed with the code. buran (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If a software is free or proprietary doesn't only depend on the availability of the sourcecode but it is a legal question. You can charge as much as you can for free software. If the price was limited there would be a proprietor rule it and therefore the software would be proprietary. --mms (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is very contradictory. It opens claiming proprietary software has restrictions on the ability to modify, then claims it to be a synonym to closed software, passing over all points on editing the actual product and reverse engineering. The general structure also ignores the idea of licensing against ownership, not making a point as to whether proprietary software is simply a binary blob with no restrictions that the consumer owns, or software with a clear outline of use in the form of a license. It makes numerous comparisons that are simply wrong, or intended to make this article wrong, and either needs completely deleting, or rewritten. I don't think there is need for discussion of the fine points, or whether it is wrong, because hardly any of the content can stay. -- Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, proprietary software is software with restrictions on the ability to modify, and yes "closed source" was coinced to be a synonym for proprietary software. The term "proprietary software" was coined to refer to the opposite of free software.  Most software is either clearly free software or is clearly proprietary software (with technical restrictions such as lack of source code preventing modification, and legal restrictions such as lack of copyright permission prohibiting redistribution).  Software which comes with some freedom to modify or redistribute is sometimes called "semi-free software", but can also be called "proprietary software".


 * Is that clearer? If so, let's update the article to clarify what was confusing.  A rewrite - quickly suggested (especially in software related articles) but slowly or never perfected - is not necessary and is very demotivating for the many contributors who have worked on this article. --Gronky (talk) 09:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Pretty much agreed. As long as we see some sources outside of the FSF backing up the general opinion of the definition and not just what they think it should be. I have always understood proprietary software as having at least some relation to the term proprietary, but this idea that it is a synonym for closed source leaves a large hole for the definition of proprietary products which happen to be software. Also, if true, needs to be merged, with Closed Source as the article and "proprietary software" as a side note. -- Jimmi Hugh (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll take onboard to find non-FSF references to show the term being used this way, and I guess the most necessary clarification is that this article is about the term of art. The intro should thus mention that the use of "proprietary" in this term does not necessarily agree with other uses of that word.  As for the merger, I've just noticed that consensus (5 for, 2 against) seems to have emerged on this (Talk:Closed_source), so I will go ahead soon.  Since "closed source" is a 1988-proposed synonym for 1983 original "proprietary software", the original name was the proposed target of the merge.  ("Closed source" also has as many, or more, confusions since software can be "closed source" even if the source code is viewable and shareable :-/ Such is the difficulty of trying to explain a concept in two words.) --Gronky (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So Proprietary isn't closed source? You can't say they are synonyms, but then claim Closed Source isn't an appropriate title. I don't see how closed source can be coined after proprietary, given that it has always been the opposite of open source. Just because the OSI started using it as there appropriate term at such a time. Either way, closed source is a far more generic term for the idea, and a lot less confusing than accepting the wrong use of the term proprietary as the Standard term. -- Jimmi Hugh (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Free software" and "proprietary software", names and concepts, were coined in 1983. In 1998, OSI launched a campaign to use the names "open-source software" and "closed-source software".  Thus, "closed source" is a later synonym for "proprietary software".  I would recommend for Wikipedia to use the nickname instead of the real name if the nickname was unambiguous, but unfortunately it isn't.  Microsoft noticed this.  When OSI told everyone to talk about "open" and "closed", Microsoft launched their Shared Source program (where selected people get selective access in selective ways to Microsoft's source code).  By the rules of English, their software source is indeed "open", not "closed", but by OSI's criteria, when using their term as a term of art, they say Microsoft's shared source is "closed source", not "open source".  So "closed source" is at least as confusing - moreso in my opinion. --Gronky (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OSI, pushed open and closed, they did not coin the term. Assuming that not be true and that the terms came after i maintain that the terms Open and Closed are far more generic. The idea is very apparent in the English language, for example "My doors are closed to the public". In this sentence the term closed is used to represent the idea that not everyone has access but some people do (i.e. Shared source is closed, not open). The converse of course, is that of "My doors are open anytime", not a reference to the physical, but to the fact that anyone has access, the very definition of Open/Free. On top of this, despite dates, who coined the term and other mindless facts, the term open and closed are far more commonly seen and understood by those outside of the Free/Open world, and it is the accepted definition by the general and not those pushing the terms for there own benefit that matter. Note in this case we have seperate Free/Open pages, so if this merger sticks and there is no reason to seperate the Proprietary/Closed, the most generic and generally understood term should be used, this is undeniably Closed Source. -- Jimmi Hugh (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You describe Shared Source as "closed", and MS describes it as "open". There's no absolute here.  Both can be argued.  Without abusing the English language, MS can tell governments they've opened up their source code to them.  I wouldn't call the scientific convention of using the first name, "mindless".  And as for the seperation between FS and OSS, a merge of these pages has been in discussion for a long time - the majority who take part in that debate agree that a merge should happen, but there is deep disagreement about how to do it and what name the page should have. --Gronky (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll clear everything and put it under construction. Dragon 280 (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't do that. This article has been written by many contributors over a long period. --Gronky (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge complete
I've just merged closed source software and semi-free software in here. Lots of work to be done tidying it up, but better one untidy article on the subject than three. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You merged the article into the wrong place. Given that "Closed Source software" is the most generic term for what people here have been claiming proprietary software is, that should be the article, and "Proprietary Software" which is a term used by the FSF to describe Closed sourced software, and which wrongly uses the term proprietary at that, should be be mentioned in that article. Please Move. -- Jimmi Hugh (talk) 14:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Answered above. --Gronky (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Proprietary software is a much more common name, and "closed source" is a subset of proprietary software (as Gronky noted, it is possible to develop proprietary software "in the open", like Microsoft do with "Shared Source"). Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wrong, closed is more common outside of the Free/Open Communities which know both terms anyway. Any developer who classifies there source codes' availabiloty would use the term closed source in light of the negative connotation people attempt to align with the term Proprietary. Only an outsider would term it proprietary in an attempt to have this effect. Also Closed is not a subset. As i mention in my above response, the term closed is already used in the context of shared access in the English language and you can't just make up the idea it is a subset because of your perception. For one, it isn't a subset, and secondly it completely destroys all arguments that the terms are seperate, given being pushed as seperate ideas for the same central goal (FSF vs. OSI).


 * At least consider the Rename considering the facts in my last post, and the Common usage. If it is decided by everyone else that i am miles off the mark though, i'll of course drop it :-P -- Jimmi Hugh (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The term "proprietary" doesn't actually hold any negative connotations outwith the free software community, so I don't believe that people try to avoid it. I think Gronky's argued pretty convincingly that calling Shared Source "closed source" is clearly contradictory on its face regardless of any underlying intent. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Despite the fact that open and closed were used in the same way before the idea of software even came to be? They are more conforming to previous definitions than proprietary which is used wrongly purely in order to attempt to sound negative. Unfortunately i can't speak for all Businesses, but in major software in England we call our closed source products closed, our open ones open or free depending on the situation and consider proprietary to be a derogatory attempt at making closed source sound negative. If that's not how it is everywhere else though, fair enouugh. -- Jimmi Hugh (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)