Open source: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Open source (view source)

Revision as of 06:07, 6 March 2011

184 bytes removed , 13 years ago

OSI approved licences

Anonymous user

rosettacode>Markhobley

Revision as of 02:25, 31 January 2008 (view source) rosettacode>Mwn3d (New page: Category:Encyclopedia'''Open source''' or '''open-source''' is the idea that source code for a piece of software is freely available for viewing and modifying. According to the [http:/...)		Latest revision as of 06:07, 6 March 2011 (view source) rosettacode>Markhobley (OSI approved licences)
(3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: [[Category:Encyclopedia]] [[Category:Encyclopedia]]'''Open source''' or '''open-source''' is the idea that source code for a piece of software is freely available for viewing and modifying. According to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Definition Open Source Definition], the following ten conditions must be met to be considered "open source":▼ ~~:#Free Redistribution: the software can be freely given away or sold. (This was intended to expand sharing and use of the software on a legal basis.)~~ ~~:#Source Code: the source code must either be included or freely obtainable. (Without source code, making changes or modifications can be impossible.)~~ ~~:#Derived Works: redistribution of modifications must be allowed. (To allow legal sharing and to permit new features or repairs.)~~ ~~:#Integrity of The Author's Source Code: licenses may require that modifications are redistributed only as patches.~~ ~~:#No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups: no one can be locked out.~~ ~~:#No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor: commercial users cannot be excluded.~~ ~~:#Distribution of License: The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.~~ ~~:#License Must Not Be Specific to a Product: the program cannot be licensed only as part of a larger distribution.~~ ~~:#License Must Not Restrict Other Software: the license cannot insist that any other software it is distributed with must also be open source.~~ ~~:#License Must Be Technology-Neutral: no click-wrap licenses or other medium-specific ways of accepting the license must be required.~~ ▲~~[[Category:Encyclopedia]]~~'''Open source''' or '''open-source''' is the idea that source code for a piece of software is freely available for viewing and modifying. ~~According~~Many toopen source licences are approved by the [http://enwww.~~wikipedia~~opensource.org/~~wiki/Open_Source_Definition~~ Open Source ~~Definition~~Initiative],. Open source licences approved by the ~~following~~Open ~~ten~~Source ~~conditions~~Initiative ~~must~~may be ~~met~~referred to beas ~~considered~~'''OSI ~~"open~~approved ~~source":~~licences'''. The [[MIT/X11 License]] is an example of an open source license.▼ ▲The [[MIT/X11 License]] isand anthe ~~example~~[[GPL]] ofare anexamples of open source ~~license~~licenses. It should be noted that while the term "open source" has gained wide-spread acceptance, there are still those who reject it. The most visible example is [[wp:Richard Stallman\|Richard Stallman]], founder of the GNU Project and author of the GPL and several widely-used software packages, who instead continues to use the older term '''free software'''. (For a brief discussion of his reasons, see the Terminology section of his Wikipedia entry.) The possible confusion of the word "free" prompted Stallman to explain it this way: <blockquote>"Free software" is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of "free" as in "free speech," not as in "free beer."</blockquote> ==See Also== * [http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd The Open Source Definition] * [http://www.opensource.org/licenses List of Open Source Licenses] * [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html The Free Software Definition] * [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software]