Talk:Open-source software

Proposal to rewrite Sociological and demographic questions and the introduction

I propose rewriting the intro/lead in section. I also propose rewriting the social and demographic questions section and renaming it Society and Culture, as well as moving the section further down toward the bottom as impact to society makes more sense as a closing thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Policy1257 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended content

Open Source Software

The term open source software (OSS) refers to software projects that are redistributable, with all source code being made available. Similarly, modifications and derived works are allowed and distributable.

Though open-source software has many similarities to free software, open-source software focuses on the logic of publicly available software creating as much innovation as possible, while the free software movement sees publicly available software as a moral right, creating philosophical differences, though both movements support publicly available software. Because of their similarities, some refer to their projects with both terms; free and open source (FOSS) or free/libre open source (F/LOSS, FLOSS). Whichever the case, because of their respective philosophical focuses, it is generally expected to refer to projects as the creator has labeled them.

The strength of open source software is its community, involving a range of roles from contributors to users. Because open source software is generally made up of voluntary contributions, open source projects differ from proprietary software in their organization, membership, leadership, contribution policies, and quality control. This allows for lower barriers to participation, but also removes the monetary incentive to finish projects. However, there are also some disadvantages. For example, due to being made up of voluntary contributions there may be members who are unhelpful or have agendas that influence their contributions. These issues may be true of any voluntary community and the majority greatly outnumbers the minority of unpleasant participants. Some other issues may be licensing difficulties, disordered projects, language barriers, poor communication, or abandoned projects.

For the consumer, open source software offers and opportunity to share, modify, improve software within the licensing limitations or to enjoy the software others have altered. For society, open source software offers software that can be tailored to the needs of many industries and institutions around the world, including governments, allowing for greater economic development.

References

Proposal of rewriting page with Wikipedia standards

While editing the "Motivations" section, I noticed that some parts of the article may place greater emphasis on career-related and reputation-related motivations than on other motivations commonly discussed in the literature on open-source software participation.

A number of academic and community sources describe a broader range of motivations, including support for free and open-source software principles, personal interest in projects, problem-solving, community participation, improving software that contributors use themselves, learning opportunities, and professional development. In my view, these motivations could be represented more comprehensively and proportionally throughout the article. I am generally supportive of free and open-source software, so I may have my own perspective on this topic. For that reason, I am raising the issue here for discussion rather than making substantial changes unilaterally. More broadly, after reviewing several sections of the article, I wonder whether parts of the page would benefit from a review for consistency, neutrality, and balance. The article appears to have been expanded over time by many contributors and some sections seem to reflect different writing styles and levels of detail.

I would be interested in hearing other editors' views on whether a broader review or restructuring effort would be beneficial, particularly with regard to maintaining a neutral point of view and ensuring that major perspectives represented in reliable sources are covered proportionally. LakshitSinghBishtTM (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@LakshitSinghBishtTM: I encourage you to develop it.

In 2024 I organized a project at my university to develop several Wikipedia articles on open-source software. The goal was to identify sources to cite and summarize so that the entire article had good citations. I am indifferent generally to how the article develops, except as usual for Wikipedia, I want the content matched to good sources. Somehow since then the sources have left. To get started, can you try to find good sources to cite about motivations for creating or using this software? When you have sources or a plan then ping me and I will talk it through with you.

• February 2024
• May 2024 <--- the version I organized, one source cited throughout
• February 2026 shortened, citation removed
• June 2026 recent attempt to rewrite

Bluerasberry (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Sure. I will find out the sources. Though, right now I am writing a paper on Proteus (a programmable protocol for censorship circumvention), so I won't be able to find much substantial sources for Wikipedia, but I will try it soon, and also as a long term project. LakshitSinghBishtTM (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Conflicts over the definition of "open source"

[COI disclaimer: doing citizen research « Open Source 2.0: From Open Source Software to Open Source Resources? », also improving the open source page]]

TL;DR: Open source is an essentially contested concept with various interpretations and usages. Explaining open source strictly with the prism of the Open Source Definition from the Open Source Initiative raises concerns under the neutral point of view (NPOV) policy.

The Open Source Initiative's (OSI) definition is recognized by several governments internationally as the standard or de facto definition.

Currently, the page only explains "open source" through the lens of the OSI's OSD, as the de facto definition. While it's true it's the main reference to define open source, it's however all about social convention as the organization do not possess any legal authority over the concept.

The main source of conflict being around the "No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups" and "Fields of Endeavor", at least for ethical and economical concerns (for decades). There are various usages of "open source" in non-compliance regarding the OSD, more or less intentionally with even some questioning regarding some OSD revision around it.

The creation of the Organization for Ethical Source is the result of this division in "open source" software communities, described as a "New Kind of Open Source Organization" — Coraline Ada Ehmke stopped working around the OSI/OSD after her proposed evolutions to the OSD were rejected.

The proliferation of related terms reflects also this semantic/definitional divide: Source-available software, ethical source, fair source, shared source, fauxpen source, Post-open source... Used at first by the dominant point of view from OSD proponents to delegitimize alternative uses, where dissenting voices do use them or simply reject the OSI framing and use 'open source' anyway.

The definition of open source is political, and therefore the position of the OSD should be more carefully considered to reflect these various interpretations and minimize potential biases on this page. The OSD standard being therefore one approach among others.

I propose to add a "Definitions and controversies" section. AbcSxyZ (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Your section on the controversies over the definition of "Open-source software" frames it as though the Open Source Initiative is in an unusually privileged position to decide what Open-Source Software is. But people can and do ignore them entirely. There's no reason to take their definition of open-source software over the definitions used by either the Free Software Foundation, or by Linus Torvalds, or by whatever prominent Linux social media influencer you like. Their definition of the term "Open-source software", is just one possible meaning of the term. Absolutekeysmith (talk) 05:20, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

But with their "Open Source Definition", they define it in their view (it's in the name), enforced by a majority of the community. A semantic capture by an organization... Not following can have serious consequences, such as hostile fork for a business that want to protect itself from big techs. It's a rather strange situation, The Social Construction of Reality. Exposed regularly as an absolute truth, it can become reflected here or in various explanation of open source software. Therefore neutrality can be tricky around here, the association between Open Source Definition = open source being really strong.

"Source-available software" is for example a biased terminology as the essence of open source is about making source code available. Unclear, never really explained by what it is but by what it's not in opposition with the OSD.

Don't tell them it's a broken kilogram 🤫 AbcSxyZ (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

"Open source software" is provided with a license, which is a legal contract. That legal contract defines what is and isn't permissible use by the user of the software. People have various ideals regarding making programming easier and more powerful for the masses, and they sometimes use the terms "open-source software" or "free software" to refer to software provided under terms which help serve these ideals, but it's in the words of the license terms and the actions of the licensor in management of its community of the software project that the risk of using a piece of software and engaging with its community is established, and usually not in debating over the precise definition of the term "open-source".

Secondly, when you say OSI's definition is "enforced by a majority of the community", I'd like a source for that. I know there's corporate sponsors which like the OSI, but open-source software was started by programmers who felt that there was a moral element to the permitting access to free software. Why do the corporations matter much for their endorsement of one definition, rather than many different individuals who are mostly copying from the examples of the usage of the term that they see online? Absolutekeysmith (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn't have articles about cultural war otherwise (see ref) — maybe wait and see. Won't reply more here as talk page are not the place for these kind of broader debates, should have some relation to the article production. AbcSxyZ (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

References