Talk:Open source

Attribution

This article contains material from Open source, Open-source license, Open-source software, and Open collaboration. bd2412 T 00:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

The simple English phrase "open source" can be found in books dating to the 1800s

Google search

Example: "It is for all those that its glance attracts, the principle of an originality, in some sort impersonal, the ceaselessly open source of great, new, and touching ideas, which, confounding themselves with their source, oblige the mind that has conceived ... Outlines of Theology (1865) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbm1058 (talk • contribs)

• According to this Ngram, Twitter has been steadily declining in popularity for over a century. bd2412 T 00:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok thanks.i have been trying to log in for the pass 20 mind no go TLC82 (talk) 03:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Origin Disputed

The current article claims that the OSI people first proposed the modern meaning of the term open source, however that is disputed. There is a mailing list post by Cadellera that used the term 2 years before the OSI people appear to claim to have invented it. See this article for details: https://hyperlogos.org/article/Who-Invented-Term-Open-Source

I've marked the section disputed for now, hopefully someone with more experience editing Wikipedia can rewrite it in a reasonable way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.250.164 (talk) 04:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

So the only useful reference here is http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html . However, note that the phrase is always "open source code", not "open source". It's more like "open source-code", not "open-source code". This single reference does not lead credence to the proposition that "open source", by itself, was a widely used term before OSI. I'm therefore removing the dispute tag. JordiGH (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this contested history and related articles that dig into it:

- Open Source undefined, part 1: the alternative origin story

- Let’s not be pedantic about “Open Source” AbcSxyZ (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Hyphenation

The phrase "open-source" is an adjective--a compound modifier--and therefore should be hyphenated. This phrase is not and cannot be a noun that stands on its own--not by this definition. See Oxford, Merriam-Webster, and other established dictionaries. (Oxford's contains a typo--they state that it is an adjective and hyphenate it in the sample sentence, but the term is lacking a hyphen--I brought that to their attention.) I cannot edit the title of this article but it too should be "Open-source". Even when the phrase is not followed by a noun, the noun is either ellipted (and understood), or is stated earlier in the sentence. It always stands for something like "open-source software", "open-source code", etc. For example: "Nowadays, more and more software products are open-source." Sukoch (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

References

That very may well be, but wikipedia follows the common usage, even if the common usage might technically be incorrect. - MrOllie (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Including information from opinionated paragraph(s)

@JasonCarswell: Please stop adding the opinionated sections from this edit back into the article. An article about open source is not a good place to discuss war profiteering. The frustrating thing is that there is some relevant information in there that I haven't managed to integrate (albeit coloured by the political issues you're most knowledgeable on); I would like to discuss ways of including this information in the article proper whilst remaining on-topic and conforming to Wikipedia's standards. wizzwizz4 (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wizzwizz4: So fix it, don't remove it. If you just keep resetting then it's not improving. I didn't reset it back to my original when I initiated and we created this new BCA (broad concept article) a year and a half ago. I improved it since then. You're not helping if you're not helping. I was not discussing war, but profiteering has one of the most critical impacts on the corruption of science and the obfuscation leading to scientism. Just because YOU "haven't managed to integrate" it doesn't mean someone else can't do it. I insist you roll back your edit and we can discuss a better way forward, breaking down every word and/or asking for assistance if needs be. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 06:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@JasonCarswell: I didn't just reset it. But seeing as I'm not the only person who's (repeatedly) reverted the edits adding that paragraph, this version's probably a better consensus to build from. Did you really have to write

as well as the political lobbyists (a soft term for legalized bribery)

and

in a world where corporate corruption and status quo war profiteering are business as usual.

? I won't revert the article to a state where this text is in it; it's not relevant to the article. What specific, relevant information have I removed that should be in the article? I'm happy to return that, or you can. wizzwizz4 (talk) 08:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Wizzwizz4: Thanks for engaging. IMO the political bribery is absolutely fundamentally at the corrupting core of all our privatized scientific institutions thus necessitating a blind faith in scientism. I'm open to phrasing it differently, such as "political lobbyists, who some/many say/acknowledge is legal bribery,..." citations needed of course. I don't weasel words like "some say", and I prefer calling it a "soft term" because that's what propaganda spin does to make the medicine go down.

Regarding: "in a world where corporate corruption and status quo war profiteering are business as usual." I hardly think this is controversial, now nor through history, especially in the USA where half its budget is spend on its military, weapons manufacturing, and global "aid" (surpassing all other countries combined) - though I can see how some might object to "business as usual" when something like "commonplace" might suffice. Corporate corruption is VERY commonplace. In fact it's expected that all corporations externalize as much as possible, (as much as they can get away with - and more), to earn maximum profits for their shareholders. Watch The Corporation (2003 film) for the basics. This understanding that the world is violent and corrupt is at the fundamental core of objecting to potentially dangerous privatized science and scientism for profit in favour of authentic open science benefiting all. It's profoundly relevant to that part of the article. Try to change my mind. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@JasonCarswell: That's the trouble – Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, nor is it for your personal opinion. Whilst I disagree that they're as fundamental as that, I agree that some of the things you've outlined play some effect – nonetheless, they're not statements about open source and they're not likely to be citable. Political lobbyists being a legal form of bribery should go on the article about lobbying – and, in fact, the very second paragraph of that article goes into quite a bit of detail about the ethical concerns. Lobbying in the United States contains pretty much all you've tried to say about lobbying in this article already – note that the specific off-topic things you've brought up are mostly US issues, which is a small part of why I've removed them with such prejudice.

A couple of these things aren't all that controversial, but they're all incredibly tangential. Nearly everything can be linked back to the things I am knowledgeable and passionate about, some of which are extremely important, but they're not actually related topics and I don't go around editing references to them into unrelated Wikipedia articles. Likewise, open source ≠ corporate corruption. An article about open source is not an article about contemporary US political issues. Open source exists in France, and Japan, and Ethiopia, which don't have “status quo war profiteering” (a phrase which, to be honest, I'm not actually certain of the meaning of). Just because these things are what leads you to care about open source, doesn't mean they are integral to the understanding of it. They're not. A sentence about lobbying with a link would be sufficient (though I'm not sure what that sentence would say, exactly). wizzwizz4 (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm now starting to realize where this terrible writing is coming from. Hyperbole and words to the effect of "it has been said" don't belong in an encyclopedia article.𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 02:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The success of open source

The fact that open source is used practically everywhere today really needs to be mentioned in the article's introduction: I have done just that with embedded devices added today; earlier had been other aspects with a link to the overall article on OS market share. I also noted the area in which it is not used as much (which is of course the PC market / Windows operating system). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Altanner1991 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I have removed it because it is essentially all Linux rather than open source in general. Altanner1991 (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Merge into / redirect to Open-source model

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To merge Open-source model into Open source due to overlap. Klbrain (talk) 11:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

---

I found the article Open-source model, and I can't see a difference in scope. Additionally, that article is very detailed. Is there a reason to keep this article separate? wizzwizz4 (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Open-source model to Open source

The scope of this article is identical to Open-source model. Open-source model was moved from "Open source" in 2016 with little discussion. I don't see the need in having them split up. Both this page and Open-source model list up uses of this term for other industries. BD2412, what do you think? – Thjarkur (talk) 10:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the article's scope is clearer at Open-source model; having the article there might prevent it from going the way of this page. Regardless of where the merged article ends up, we should definitely keep the page history of the article currently at Open-source model; this article is the newer, inferior one, with very little (if anything) to contribute to such a merger. wizzwizz4 (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

"Open-source model" would not be the better title, because readers will look for Open source more often than "Open-source "model"". Altanner1991 (talk) 09:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support merge into Open source as long as nothing gets lost. Open-source model is the bigger article so need to make sure all of that content is retained. 69.122.72.114 (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support merge into Open source obviously keeping edit histories/copyright claims against such violations... Both articles are close enough to count as duplicates of each other. Altanner1991 (talk) 10:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  Y Merge completed Klbrain (talk) 11:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Multiple issues

This article is in serious need of review. The pictures are cited in German. Lots to do here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.219.79.223 (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Please comment

It would be good to receive comments to this discussion: link --Avoinlähde (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Leading section and scope of the article

I didn't read the article in full, but it really stands out that the leading section refers just to open source software while the rest of the article goes on to cover open source hardware and several other things. I don't know what the best course of action is. Maybe the article should be split. But, if not, the leading section should give a more general definition. —Gennaro Prota^•Talk 13:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed - I was about to highlight that the opening section "Open source is source code that is made freely available for possible modification and redistribution." is far too Software specific. Perhaps Open source is intellectual property (often source code) that is made freely available for possible modification and redistribution? Cronky (talk) 13:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Saw it afterwards, but same issue raised than Lacking Focus section of the talk page. See comments there.

Added a lead rewrite banner + started an intro review. Will stop here for a while, my Claude AI colleague start to complain I did too many edit 😅 AbcSxyZ (talk) 05:24, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Can we Add Tankmen?

According to various sources, the Tankmen are now open source characters. 104.34.175.116 (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Open Source Explorer advert(?)

The edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_source&diff=prev&oldid=1241170073 appears to be an attempt to re-add the reference that was reverted in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_source&diff=prev&oldid=1231686674 after having been originally added in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_source&diff=prev&oldid=1231616770 . I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia policy to figure this out and I am just familiar enough to know that simply performing a revert myself might be a violation of the policy on edit warring. Please advise. 20kdc (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Lacking focus

WRT the opening: "Open source is source code...": that's what I thought this article was about ... until I read the sections towards the bottom that list lots of examples of open source things that are not software; electronics (hardware), food & beverage, medicine.... And I discovered open-source software. It seems this article should be more of a disambiguation page and OSS for software. Stevebroshar (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

[Duplicate with Leading section and scope of the article] — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbcSxyZ (talk • contribs) 07:16, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Seconding this observation — still unaddressed eight months later. I will add a lead rewrite banner. The intro conflates three distinct concepts: source code availability (technical), licensing conditions (legal), and the open source collaborative model (cultural). These deserve clearer separation, with an introduction sentence that may encompass these various aspects.

On top of this, we can witness an emerging use of open source beyond software deriving from the availability of source files of digital resources. I've just added a sentence in the introduction supported by six independent sources. See also Open Source Educational Resources section I've just added in the Open Educational Resources page.

As context to disclaim conflict of interest, I've just published a preprint regarding the meaning of open source « Open Source 2.0 : From Open Source Software to Open Source Resources? » that describes this pattern between source files and final format across various typologies of digital resources, a topic that may be of interest for different openness movements (Open Science, Open Education and so on.). Not yet a citable source for now but shared for transparency — the preprint may be of interest for editors working on this article.

In the preprint, I develop the notion of « open source resource » while proposing the following definition: a digital resource made publicly available alongside its source files. AbcSxyZ (talk) 09:27, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

History contradicts itself

At one point the history section both claims a long history of the use of the term, going way back and also claims that it was coined in 1990. It is not possible that both are true at the same time and since the 1990 claim is much later than the rest of the history section, this clearly must be the wrong claims. I propose the 1990 claim be rewritten to clarify that this claim is a incorrect myth. ~2026-58245-3 (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

The article states the concept has a long history, and that the term was coined in 1990s. Mindmatrix 19:09, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

[Open Source 2.0] Rewrite proposal to prevent software centrism of the page

COI: specialist on the meaning of « open source », doing citizen research « Open Source 2.0: From Open Source Software to Open Source Resources? ».

Hello world 👋 Given my research topic and the chaotic state of the page, I began working on this nuclear topic. I propose that we open a discussion to move beyond the page's focus on software in order to better reflect the diversity of "open source".

The article clearly lacks overall consistency; a lack of focus has been noted for several years on the talk page. We are in a situation where the body of the page reflects many uses of the concept of open source, but since the concept has historically been associated with software many explanations revolve around it — whether it's in the lead or various sections. Alongside this software-focused approach, we then have a whole range of applications beyond software which creates important confusion on the concept.

Open-source software also has its own page, which results in duplicate content. I started working with the lead last month with a “Lead Rewrite” banner, I gave it some time to stabilize without rejection so far. It's a structural issue on a major topic, hence the decision to open this discussion to the community around the meaning of open source and how it should be reflected in the encyclopedia. I'm now going to add a “cleanup rewrite” banner to encourage more discussions and work.

Hey guys, what is open source? It's a bit confusing.
Good Luck, Have Fun, Don't Die
AbcSxyZ (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I fixed the lead. fgnievinski (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello Fgnievinski, thanks for the contribution! A bit brutal in my view 😂 That would be great to fix everything that easily, but open source is probably a concept slightly too complex to do so and in some ways you redefine open source in a curious way. Anyway, it doesn't solve the problem of the body where it remains software oriented with legacy. I restored the rewrite banners for now.

Did an emergency edit while scratching my head yesterday, some comments regarding your changes:

Open source or open-source model is the production of open content resources based on open collaboration.

Collaboration is not a defining component of open source and this dimension must be dissociated, coming on top. Some open source resources can provide source code/files without any sort of collaboration. See for example What Is The Spirit of Open Source?. Open source should revolve around some kind of source.

I replaced the first sentence with a source code/files centric introduction.

Open source promotes universal access via an open-source or free license to a product's design or blueprint, and universal redistribution of that design or blueprint.

Universal access is contested, open source (in software) is an Essentially contested concept. There is the view based on the Open Source Definition in this line, but open source is also used in contradiction with this approach. There is a conflict over the definition and therefore its usage. In the previous intro I added the following sources . Defining open source in this universal/liberal way based on the OSD view would lack neutrality regarding what open source is and how it's used.

I see some flaws in every sentence but won't expand more here to be too long, I think that's first important key points.

To suggest a kind of structure for the lead or at least the key elements that come into my mind:

• General definition to encompass any type of resources with source code and source files availability.
• Explain it's commonly and historically associated with software
• Add extension to other kinds of digital resources
• Explain that open source resources can be based on open collaboration + rights enabled with a specific copyright framework (open licences, but may also be through public domain [ex: World Wide Web by the CERN])
• Open source as publicly available source of information like it's used with Open-source intelligence (OSINT).
• By analogy to these collaborative practices and public access, various uses of the term in many contexts

I think with a lead that integrates all of these elements we may be able to encompass every usage of the open source terminology, in a way that may enable a distinction between these various aspects. AbcSxyZ (talk) 05:43, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm quite satisfied with the current lead and could remove the lead rewrite banner, but prefer to keep it for a while (~1 month at least) to encourage discussion, as it raises genuine questions regarding encyclopedia policies.

This is an uncommon introduction to "open source," involving interpretation of the body's content and resulting in a synthesis that draws to some extent on my own research — though individual claims can be sourced, avoiding WP:SELFCITE. This places it in tension with WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH to some degree.

At the same time, per MOS:LEAD, "the lead should identify the topic and summarize the body." Because the body documents broad usage of open source beyond software without secondary sources that explicitly articulate this broad scope, some degree of synthesis in the lead appears unavoidable — placing these policies in conflict. Reverting to a software-centric lead where references are more readily available does not seem a viable answer either, as it would contradict what the body already documents.

We face a significant challenge in introducing "open source" appropriately, therefore I invite other contributors to share their views. If you know any organizations or individuals who have done rigorous work to define open source that we could draw on — I am not aware of any. AbcSxyZ (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

References

Body restructuration beyond software centrism

Following the lead rewrite, the multiple comments regarding the lack of focus of the page with this legacy software centrism, I open this topic to discuss the overall content of the body for this open source page.

We are in a configuration where it's an umbrella page (related with Open source (disambiguation)), a parent concept with many applications having their own pages (open-source software, open-source hardware, open-source intelligence and so on). I'm thinking it may be more about providing brief and overall description while redirecting to specific pages to enable readers to have more details. With also some cross-cutting elements to develop like licensing or open collaboration which also have their own pages.

We have first sections related mostly to software such as history, economics, open collaboration and open source license, with this implicit association open source = software. Would need refinement or being moved to appropriate pages imo.

And then we have all these various applications of open source, for software and beyond. There is somehow 2 applications sections, with content being duplicated (ex: 2 software sections and 2 hardware sections at least).

For now, I will move the application section at the top to try to gather progressively elements inside it, reflecting directly this variety of usages. And see where it can goes from here. AbcSxyZ (talk) 05:02, 12 July 2026 (UTC)