Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2021 October 18

= October 18 =

Company size/income information
I am looking for a data set (like csv) that has company names or stock symbols and the size of the company. Size can be in number of employees or amount of income, net or gross. I'm just looking for something that I can use to say "That is a big company and that is a small company." I can't find any data sets that don't require a huge hassle of begging some unknown person or board for permission to download the file. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What's your definition of "big" and "small"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That would be dependent on the data, right? If you can find a data set that has something I can go by, then I can define it. For example, if you have a data set with number of employees, I can define big and small based on employee size. If you have a data set with total salaries paid out to employees, I can define big and small based on salary size. Until I find a data set, I can't define the terms. It is a chicken and egg thing and I can't find either the chicken or the egg. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia, you defining what big and small are would amount to original research. You would need to find sources that make those definitions. For big, it's fairly easy. You could go to a source like Fortune and see who they call "big". For small, there would have to be other sources, whatever they might be. Locally-owned restaurants could be an example. And keep in mind that a lot of companies are liable to fall between "big" and "small". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about Wikipedia? The OP's request makes perfect sense to me, so I don't know why you keep throwing obstacles in his way. He simply wants a list of companies sorted by size - any metric for size will do - so that he can then divide the companies up into large, medium, small etc. using definitions of size he makes himself, for his own purposes. He never said anything about applying those terms to a Wikipedia article. --Viennese Waltz 17:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If it's not for Wikipedia, the OP can do whatever he wants. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * To the OP: Sorry that this board has been such a distraction so far, we will try to do better in answering your questions. This webpage seems to have a good start for your research.  While that main page only lists the number of companies at each size benchmark, it looks like it has options and products available for your research.  The "free" stuff looks to be mostly very general, but they look to have pay services that may provide the information you seek.  If you use their "contact us" information, they may be able to answer your questions better than we can.  -- Jayron 32 17:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I requested a quote for the business list. This is similar to what I've found. Everyone wants money for this sort of list. I think it was silly to think that something like this would be sitting somewhere where you could download it. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Can open source software be bought?
After seeing what happened with audacity, I was wondering how a company can gain ownership of an open source software. Thanks for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.108.178 (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What Mazzoni transferred to Muse in the deal was the the ownership of the trademark Audacity®. The source code of Audacity has no owner. The repository holding the source of free and open-source software can be owned – see – but the source code of Audacity is hosted on github.  --Lambiam 07:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I doubt it's correct the source code has no owner. The developers of the code own the copyright (where it exists) for their individual work, unless they chose to release it into the public domain which they probably didn't, or transferred it to someone else. (Well any work done by someone as a part of their job will probably be a work for hire and the copyright holder will be whoever they're working for.) A lot of open source software has enough random/unconnected contributors that re-licencing or using the code except in a manner allowed by the original licence is impossible although as I remarked below, not all open source software is developed like that. (And non-copyleft licences can be fairly open in how you may use them including in proprietary works.) Open source licences especially copyleft licences need to rely on the copyright system to work since there's no alternative in law. Wikipedia works the same way, all contributors here retain the copyright over their work unless they explicitly chose to release it into the public domain which arguably might not be possible in some countries and in any case very few do. However they've also agreed to licence it under one or more free content licences. Still their copyright ownership comes up especially if they want to sue someone not obeying the licence terms, or if some party wishes a licence other than the free content one they released it under. The latter isn't generally possible for text since most of our text has a lot of contributors but I'm certain it has occurred with other content like images or videos.  BTW, I don't think GitHub has any significant restrictions beyond legal ones on who may own the copyright over content hosted on their services. Perhaps some limited restrictions on dealing with groups they don't wish to be associated with. I don't think they even require a open source licence for public repositories unlike some other hosting services. [//stackoverflow.com/questions/16933385/can-my-public-github-project-not-be-open-source] [//docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/licensing-a-repository] In other words, the code being on GitHub doesn't really tell you anything about the copyright holder/s, or even the licence terms.  Nil Einne (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Some open source is entirely developed by some party (an individual, group or company), or accepts external code but requires a copyright transfer for it. And if all copyright holder/s agree, the copyright over the code could be transferred to some other party including a company perhaps for a fee. Proper open source licences are perpetual, so none of this will allow the open source licence to be revoked/cancelled. However the copyright holder could stop contributing to the open source version and instead only develop their own proprietary version. And if no one else continues to develop the open source version (or forks, depending on how it's run) it may eventually stop working or otherwise become somewhat useless. Of course if the copyright holder is charging too much for their proprietary version or otherwise does things users don't like, users could pay someone else to develop the open source version. As Lambian mentioned, trademarks may also be owned by someone who may limit their use, perhaps requiring a fork. Nil Einne (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Great Britain's influence in colonial Texas
HELP!

Im in school right now so ecxuse me for my poor spelling.

I need to know: did Great Britan have any influence in colonial Texas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.127.1.74 (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see in the Texas article that there was colonization by Britain. It was largely Spanish vs. French. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * No British colonization. The most significant influence it had was that the idea was bandied about of, if the US didn't annex Texas, Texas allying with the UK, since a lot of cotton was grown by the enslaved inhabitants of Texas plantations and the UK was a major importer of cotton for its textile mills (and the UK was the world's leading imperial power, so it could help Texas keep from getting taken back by Mexico). The UK's main sources of cotton were India (under its control), Egypt (not under its control to the same degree it was starting in 1882 but it had a lot of influence there already), and the US (which it had an often strained relationship with at the time, and was not at all under its control anymore); an alliance with Texas would have made it less dependent on the US and given it extra leverage in its dealings with the US. This alliance never happened, and Texas ended up becoming part of the US less than a decade after it stopped being part of Mexico. Hope this helps! --Kirjelma (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has a lot of information on the history of Texas. The article and section Texas Revolution has a pretty concise synopsis on the colonial history of Texas, up to the Texas Revolution, as does Republic of Texas.  There was never any British settlement or British claim to Texas, British North America was generally confined to areas east of the Appalachian mountains and north of the current Florida/Georgia line.  The primary English speaking colonists in Texas were the Empresarios, a group of wealthy American slave-owners who settled in Texas under an invitation from Spain shortly before the Mexican War of Independence.  The Spanish had trouble settling the region with European settlers (Spanish Texas was the least settled region of Spanish Mexico.)  Prior to the Spanish, parts of Texas had briefly been colonized by the French (see French colonization of Texas) and during the Napoleonic Era, France had also taken control of Spain's American colonial territories, claiming parts of Texas as belonging to Louisiana (New France), which had been controlled by Spain between 1762/3-1800 following France's earlier loss in the Seven Years' War.  After Mexican independence, the new Mexican government initially honored the settlement agreements with the Empressarios, but strained relations over several decades led to the Texas Revolution and the eventual annexation of Texas by the U.S.  -- Jayron 32 12:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Britain and the annexation of Texas, with particular reference to the slavery question (1836--1845) says that:
 * US recognition of independent Texas was prompted by unfounded fears that the territory might be sold or annexed to UK.
 * UK recognition of Texas was eventually granted only after an undertaking that Texas would emancipate her slaves.
 * UK then brokered a settlement between Mexico and Texas, which would safeguard huge British investments in Mexico.
 * UK opposed Texas annexation because: a) it meant that slavery would continue in Texas, b) they feared loss of investments in Mexico, and c) they feared growing US economic competition.
 * The possibility of British intervention to force abolition hardened pro-annexation sentiment in the US
 * UK helped to facilitate negotiations for a Mexico-Texas treaty to prevent US annexation - see Texas–Mexico–United Kingdom negotiations
 * Alansplodge (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Excellent information. Thanks for adding it!  -- Jayron 32 12:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)