Open-source software

Open-source software (OSS) is computer

software that is released under a license in
which the copyright holder grants users the
rights to use, study, change, and distribute the
software and its source code to anyone and for
any purpose.[1][2] Open-source software may
be developed in a collaborative public manner.
Open-source software is a prominent example
of open collaboration, meaning any capable
user is able to participate online in
development, making the number of possible
contributors indefinite. The ability to examine A screenshot of Manjaro running the Cinnamon desktop
the code facilitates public trust in the environment, Firefox accessing Wikipedia which uses
software.[3] MediaWiki, LibreOffice Writer, Vim, GNOME Calculator,
VLC and Nemo file manager, all of which are open-source
Open-source software development can bring software.
in diverse perspectives beyond those of a
single company. A 2008 report by the Standish
Group stated that adoption of open-source software models has resulted in savings of about $60 billion per
year for consumers.[4][5]

Open source code can be used for studying and allows capable end users to adapt software to their personal
needs in a similar way user scripts and custom style sheets allow for web sites, and eventually publish the
modification as a fork for users with similar preferences, and directly submit possible improvements as pull
requests.

Contents
History
End of 1990s: Foundation of the Open Source Initiative
Definitions
Open-source software licensing
Certifications
Open-source software development
Development model
Advantages and disadvantages
Development tools
Organizations
Funding
Comparisons with other software licensing/development models
Closed source / proprietary software
Free software
 Open-source versus source-available
Open-sourcing
Current applications and adoption
Widely used open-source software
Extensions for non-software use
See also
References
Further reading
External links

History

End of 1990s: Foundation of the Open Source Initiative

In the early days of computing, programmers and developers shared software in order to learn from each
other and evolve the field of computing. Eventually, the open-source notion moved to the wayside of
commercialization of software in the years 1970–1980. However, academics still often developed software
collaboratively. Examples are Donald Knuth in 1979 with the TeX typesetting system[6] and Richard
Stallman in 1983 with the GNU operating system.[7] In 1997, Eric Raymond published The Cathedral and
the Bazaar, a reflective analysis of the hacker community and free-software principles. The paper received
significant attention in early 1998, and was one factor in motivating Netscape Communications Corporation
to release their popular Netscape Communicator Internet suite as free software. This source code
subsequently became the basis behind SeaMonkey, Mozilla Firefox, Thunderbird and KompoZer.

Netscape's act prompted Raymond and others to look into how to bring the Free Software Foundation's
free software ideas and perceived benefits to the commercial software industry. They concluded that FSF's
social activism was not appealing to companies like Netscape, and looked for a way to rebrand the free
software movement to emphasize the business potential of sharing and collaborating on software source
code.[8] The new term they chose was "open source", which was soon adopted by Bruce Perens, publisher
Tim O'Reilly, Linus Torvalds, and others. The Open Source Initiative was founded in February 1998 to
encourage use of the new term and evangelize open-source principles.[9]

While the Open Source Initiative sought to encourage the use of the new term and evangelize the principles
it adhered to, commercial software vendors found themselves increasingly threatened by the concept of
freely distributed software and universal access to an application's source code. Microsoft executive Jim
Allchin publicly stated in 2001 that "open source is an intellectual property destroyer. I can't imagine
something that could be worse than this for the software business and the intellectual-property
business."[10] However, while Free and open-source software has historically played a role outside of the
mainstream of private software development, companies as large as Microsoft have begun to develop
official open-source presences on the Internet. IBM, Oracle, Google, and State Farm are just a few of the
companies with a serious public stake in today's competitive open-source market. There has been a
significant shift in the corporate philosophy concerning the development of FOSS.[11]

The free-software movement was launched in 1983. In 1998, a group of individuals advocated that the term
free software should be replaced by open-source software (OSS) as an expression which is less
ambiguous[12][13][14] and more comfortable for the corporate world.[15] Software developers may want to
publish their software with an open-source license, so that anybody may also develop the same software or
understand its internal functioning. With open-source software, generally, anyone is allowed to create
modifications of it, port it to new operating systems and instruction set architectures, share it with others or,
in some cases, market it. Scholars Casson and Ryan have pointed out several policy-based reasons for
adoption of open source – in particular, the heightened value proposition from open source (when
compared to most proprietary formats) in the following categories:

Security
Affordability
Transparency
Perpetuity
Interoperability
Flexibility
Localization – particularly in the context of local governments (who make software
decisions). Casson and Ryan argue that "governments have an inherent responsibility and
fiduciary duty to taxpayers" which includes the careful analysis of these factors when
deciding to purchase proprietary software or implement an open-source option.[16]

The Open Source Definition presents an open-source philosophy and further defines the terms of use,
modification and redistribution of open-source software. Software licenses grant rights to users which
would otherwise be reserved by copyright law to the copyright holder. Several open-source software
licenses have qualified within the boundaries of the Open Source Definition. The most prominent and
popular example is the GNU General Public License (GPL), which "allows free distribution under the
condition that further developments and applications are put under the same licence", thus also free.[17]

The open source label came out of a strategy session held on April 7, 1998, in Palo Alto in reaction to
Netscape's January 1998 announcement of a source code release for Navigator (as Mozilla). A group of
individuals at the session included Tim O'Reilly, Linus Torvalds, Tom Paquin, Jamie Zawinski, Larry Wall,
Brian Behlendorf, Sameer Parekh, Eric Allman, Greg Olson, Paul Vixie, John Ousterhout, Guido van
Rossum, Philip Zimmermann, John Gilmore and Eric S. Raymond.[18] They used the opportunity before
the release of Navigator's source code to clarify a potential confusion caused by the ambiguity of the word
"free" in English.

Many people claimed that the birth of the Internet, since 1969, started the open-source movement, while
others do not distinguish between open-source and free software movements.[19]

The Free Software Foundation (FSF), started in 1985, intended the word "free" to mean freedom to
distribute (or "free as in free speech") and not freedom from cost (or "free as in free beer"). Since a great
deal of free software already was (and still is) free of charge, such free software became associated with
zero cost, which seemed anti-commercial.[8]

The Open Source Initiative (OSI) was formed in February 1998 by Eric Raymond and Bruce Perens. With
at least 20 years of evidence from case histories of closed software development versus open development
already provided by the Internet developer community, the OSI presented the "open source" case to
commercial businesses, like Netscape. The OSI hoped that the use of the label "open source", a term
suggested by Christine Peterson[7][20] of the Foresight Institute at the strategy session, would eliminate
ambiguity, particularly for individuals who perceive "free software" as anti-commercial. They sought to
bring a higher profile to the practical benefits of freely available source code, and they wanted to bring
major software businesses and other high-tech industries into open source. Perens attempted to register
"open source" as a service mark for the OSI, but that attempt was impractical by trademark standards.
Meanwhile, due to the presentation of Raymond's paper to the upper management at Netscape—Raymond
only discovered when he read the press release,[21] and was called by Netscape CEO Jim Barksdale's PA
later in the day—Netscape released its Navigator source code as open source, with favorable results.[22]

Definitions
The Open Source Initiative's (OSI) definition is recognized by
several governments internationally[23] as the standard or de facto
definition. In addition, many of the world's largest open-source-
software projects and contributors, including Debian, Drupal
Association, FreeBSD Foundation, Linux Foundation, OpenSUSE
Foundation, Mozilla Foundation, Wikimedia Foundation,
Wordpress Foundation have committed[24] to upholding the OSI's
mission and Open Source Definition through the OSI Affiliate
Agreement.[25]

OSI uses The Open Source Definition to determine whether it

considers a software license open source. The definition was based
on the Debian Free Software Guidelines, written and adapted
primarily by Perens.[26][27][28] Perens did not base his writing on
the "four freedoms" from the Free Software Foundation (FSF),
which were only widely available later.[29]
The logo of the Open Source
Under Perens' definition, open source is a broad software license Initiative
that makes source code available to the general public with relaxed
or non-existent restrictions on the use and modification of the code.
It is an explicit "feature" of open source that it puts very few restrictions on the use or distribution by any
organization or user, in order to enable the rapid evolution of the software.[30]

Despite initially accepting it,[31] Richard Stallman of the FSF now flatly opposes the term "Open Source"
being applied to what they refer to as "free software". Although he agrees that the two terms describe
"almost the same category of software", Stallman considers equating the terms incorrect and misleading.[32]
Stallman also opposes the professed pragmatism of the Open Source Initiative, as he fears that the free
software ideals of freedom and community are threatened by compromising on the FSF's idealistic
standards for software freedom.[33] The FSF considers free software to be a subset of open-source
software, and Richard Stallman explained that DRM software, for example, can be developed as open
source, despite that it does not give its users freedom (it restricts them), and thus doesn't qualify as free
software.[34]

Open-source software licensing

When an author contributes code to an open-source project (e.g., Apache.org) they do so under an explicit
license (e.g., the Apache Contributor License Agreement) or an implicit license (e.g. the open-source
license under which the project is already licensing code). Some open-source projects do not take
contributed code under a license, but actually require joint assignment of the author's copyright in order to
accept code contributions into the project.[35]

Examples of free software license / open-source licenses include Apache License, BSD license, GNU
General Public License, GNU Lesser General Public License, MIT License, Eclipse Public License and
Mozilla Public License.
The proliferation of open-source licenses is a negative aspect of the open-source movement because it is
often difficult to understand the legal implications of the differences between licenses. With more than
180,000 open-source projects available and more than 1400 unique licenses, the complexity of deciding
how to manage open-source use within "closed-source" commercial enterprises has dramatically increased.
Some are home-grown, while others are modeled after mainstream FOSS licenses such as Berkeley
Software Distribution ("BSD"), Apache, MIT-style (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), or GNU
General Public License ("GPL"). In view of this, open-source practitioners are starting to use classification
schemes in which FOSS licenses are grouped (typically based on the existence and obligations imposed by
the copyleft provision; the strength of the copyleft provision).[36]

An important legal milestone for the open source / free software movement was passed in 2008, when the
US federal appeals court ruled that free software licenses definitely do set legally binding conditions on the
use of copyrighted work, and they are therefore enforceable under existing copyright law. As a result, if
end-users violate the licensing conditions, their license disappears, meaning they are infringing
copyright.[37]
Despite this licensing risk, most commercial software vendors are using open-source
software in commercial products while fulfilling the license terms, e.g. leveraging the Apache license.[38]

Certifications

Certification can help to build user confidence. Certification could be applied to the simplest component, to
a whole software system. The United Nations University International Institute for Software
Technology,[39] initiated a project known as "The Global Desktop Project". This project aims to build a
desktop interface that every end-user is able to understand and interact with, thus crossing the language and
cultural barriers. The project would improve developing nations' access to information systems. UNU/IIST
hopes to achieve this without any compromise in the quality of the software by introducing
certifications.[40]

Open-source software development

Development model

In his 1997 essay The Cathedral and the Bazaar,[41] open-source evangelist Eric S. Raymond suggests a
model for developing OSS known as the bazaar model. Raymond likens the development of software by
traditional methodologies to building a cathedral, "carefully crafted by individual wizards or small bands of
mages working in splendid isolation".[41] He suggests that all software should be developed using the
bazaar style, which he described as "a great babbling bazaar of differing agendas and approaches."[41]

In the traditional model of development, which he called the cathedral model, development takes place in a
centralized way. Roles are clearly defined. Roles include people dedicated to designing (the architects),
people responsible for managing the project, and people responsible for implementation. Traditional
software engineering follows the cathedral model.

The bazaar model, however, is different. In this model, roles are not clearly defined. Gregorio Robles[42]
suggests that software developed using the bazaar model should exhibit the following patterns:

Users should be treated as co-developers

The users are treated like co-developers and so they should have access to the source
code of the software. Furthermore, users are encouraged to submit additions to the
software, code fixes for the software, bug reports, documentation, etc. Having more co-
developers increases the rate at which the software evolves. Linus's law states, "Given
 enough eyeballs all bugs are shallow." This means that if many users view the source
code, they will eventually find all bugs and suggest how to fix them. Note that some users
have advanced programming skills, and furthermore, each user's machine provides an
additional testing environment. This new testing environment offers the ability to find and
fix a new bug.
Early releases
The first version of the software should be released as early as possible so as to increase
one's chances of finding co-developers early.
Frequent integration
Code changes should be integrated (merged into a shared code base) as often as
possible so as to avoid the overhead of fixing a large number of bugs at the end of the
project life cycle. Some open-source projects have nightly builds where integration is done
automatically on a daily basis.
Several versions
There should be at least two versions of the software. There should be a buggier version
with more features and a more stable version with fewer features. The buggy version (also
called the development version) is for users who want the immediate use of the latest
features, and are willing to accept the risk of using code that is not yet thoroughly tested.
The users can then act as co-developers, reporting bugs and providing bug fixes.
High modularization
The general structure of the software should be modular allowing for parallel development
on independent components.
Dynamic decision-making structure
There is a need for a decision-making structure, whether formal or informal, that makes
strategic decisions depending on changing user requirements and other factors. Compare
with extreme programming.

Data suggests, however, that OSS is not quite as democratic as the bazaar model suggests. An analysis of
five billion bytes of free/open-source code by 31,999 developers shows that 74% of the code was written
by the most active 10% of authors. The average number of authors involved in a project was 5.1, with the
median at 2.[43]

Advantages and disadvantages

Open-source software is usually easier to obtain than proprietary software, often resulting in increased use.
Additionally, the availability of an open-source implementation of a standard can increase adoption of that
standard.[44] It has also helped to build developer loyalty as developers feel empowered and have a sense
of ownership of the end product.[45]

Moreover, lower costs of marketing and logistical services are needed for OSS. It is a good tool to promote
a company's image, including its commercial products.[46] The OSS development approach has helped
produce reliable, high quality software quickly and inexpensively.[47]

Open-source development offers the potential to quicker innovation and the creation of innovation and
social value. In France for instance, a policy that incentivized government to favor free open-source
software increased to nearly 600,000 OSS contributions per year, generating social value by increasing the
quantity and quality of open-source software. This policy also led to an estimated increase of up to 18% of
tech startups and  a 14% increase in the number of people employed in the IT sector.[48]

It is said to be more reliable since it typically has thousands of independent programmers testing and fixing
bugs of the software. Open source is not dependent on the company or author that originally created it.
Even if the company fails, the code continues to exist and be developed by its users. Also, it uses open
standards accessible to everyone; thus, it does not have the problem of incompatible formats that may exist
in proprietary software.

It is flexible because modular systems allow programmers to build custom interfaces, or add new abilities to
it and it is innovative since open-source programs are the product of collaboration among a large number of
different programmers. The mix of divergent perspectives, corporate objectives, and personal goals speeds
up innovation.[49]

Moreover, free software can be developed in accordance with purely technical requirements. It does not
require thinking about commercial pressure that often degrades the quality of the software. Commercial
pressures make traditional software developers pay more attention to customers' requirements than to
security requirements, since such features are somewhat invisible to the customer.[50]

It is sometimes said that the open-source development process may not be well defined and the stages in the
development process, such as system testing and documentation may be ignored. However this is only true
for small (mostly single programmer) projects. Larger, successful projects do define and enforce at least
some rules as they need them to make the teamwork possible.[51][52] In the most complex projects these
rules may be as strict as reviewing even minor change by two independent developers.[53]

Not all OSS initiatives have been successful; for example, SourceXchange and Eazel.[45] Software experts
and researchers who are not convinced by open source's ability to produce quality systems identify the
unclear process, the late defect discovery and the lack of any empirical evidence as the most important
problems (collected data concerning productivity and quality).[54] It is also difficult to design a
commercially sound business model around the open-source paradigm. Consequently, only technical
requirements may be satisfied and not the ones of the market.[54] In terms of security, open source may
allow hackers to know about the weaknesses or loopholes of the software more easily than closed-source
software. It depends on control mechanisms in order to create effective performance of autonomous agents
who participate in virtual organizations.[55]

Development tools

In OSS development, tools are used to support the development of the product and the development
process itself.[56]

Revision control systems such as Concurrent Versions System (CVS) and later Subversion (SVN) and Git
are examples of tools, often themselves open source, help manage the source code files and the changes to
those files for a software project.[57] The projects are frequently stored in "repositories" that are hosted and
published on source-code-hosting facilities such as Launchpad, GitHub, GitLab, and SourceForge.[58]

Open-source projects are often loosely organized with "little formalised process modelling or support", but
utilities such as issue trackers are often used to organize open-source software development.[56] Commonly
used bugtrackers include Bugzilla and Redmine.[59]

Tools such as mailing lists and IRC provide means of coordination among developers.[56] Centralized code
hosting sites also have social features that allow developers to communicate.[58]

Organizations

Some of the "more prominent organizations" involved in OSS development include the Apache Software
Foundation, creators of the Apache web server; the Linux Foundation, a nonprofit which as of 2012
employed Linus Torvalds, the creator of the Linux operating system kernel; the Eclipse Foundation, home
of the Eclipse software development platform; the Debian Project, creators of the influential Debian
GNU/Linux distribution; the Mozilla Foundation, home of the Firefox web browser; and OW2, European-
born community developing open-source middleware. New organizations tend to have a more sophisticated
governance model and their membership is often formed by legal entity members.[60]

Open Source Software Institute is a membership-based, non-profit (501 (c)(6)) organization established in
2001 that promotes the development and implementation of open source software solutions within US
Federal, state and local government agencies. OSSI's efforts have focused on promoting adoption of open-
source software programs and policies within Federal Government and Defense and Homeland Security
communities.[61]

Open Source for America is a group created to raise awareness in the United States Federal Government
about the benefits of open-source software. Their stated goals are to encourage the government's use of
open source software, participation in open-source software projects, and incorporation of open-source
community dynamics to increase government transparency.[62]

Mil-OSS is a group dedicated to the advancement of OSS use and creation in the military.[63]

Funding

Companies whose business centers on the development of open-source software employ a variety of
business models to solve the challenge of how to make money providing software that is by definition
licensed free of charge. Each of these business strategies rests on the premise that users of open-source
technologies are willing to purchase additional software features under proprietary licenses, or purchase
other services or elements of value that complement the open-source software that is core to the business.
This additional value can be, but not limited to, enterprise-grade features and up-time guarantees (often via
a service-level agreement) to satisfy business or compliance requirements, performance and efficiency gains
by features not yet available in the open source version, legal protection (e.g., indemnification from
copyright or patent infringement), or professional support/training/consulting that are typical of proprietary
software applications.

Comparisons with other software licensing/development models

Closed source / proprietary software

The debate over open source vs. closed source (alternatively called proprietary software) is sometimes
heated.

The top four reasons (as provided by Open Source Business Conference survey[64]) individuals or
organizations choose open-source software are:

1. lower cost
2. security
3. no vendor 'lock in'
4. better quality

Since innovative companies no longer rely heavily on software sales, proprietary software has become less
of a necessity.[65] As such, things like open-source content management system—or CMS—deployments
are becoming more commonplace. In 2009,[66] the US White House switched its CMS system from a
proprietary system to Drupal open source CMS. Further, companies like Novell (who traditionally sold
software the old-fashioned way) continually debate the benefits of switching to open-source availability,
having already switched part of the product offering to open source code.[67] In this way, open-source
software provides solutions to unique or specific problems. As such, it is reported[68] that 98% of
enterprise-level companies use open-source software offerings in some capacity.

With this market shift, more critical systems are beginning to rely on open-source offerings,[69] allowing
greater funding (such as US Department of Homeland Security grants[69]) to help "hunt for security bugs."
According to a pilot study of organizations adopting (or not adopting) OSS, the following factors of
statistical significance were observed in the manager's beliefs: (a) attitudes toward outcomes, (b) the
influences and behaviors of others, and (c) their ability to act.[70]

Proprietary source distributors have started to develop and contribute to the open-source community due to
the market share shift, doing so by the need to reinvent their models in order to remain competitive.[71]

Many advocates argue that open-source software is inherently safer because any person can view, edit, and
change code.[72] A study of the Linux source code has 0.17 bugs per 1000 lines of code while proprietary
software generally scores 20–30 bugs per 1000 lines.[73]

Free software

According to the Free software movement's leader, Richard Stallman, the main difference is that by
choosing one term over the other (i.e. either "open source" or "free software") one lets others know about
what one's goals are: "Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement."[33]
Nevertheless, there is significant overlap between open source software and free software.[34]

The FSF[74] said that the term "open source" fosters an ambiguity of a different kind such that it confuses
the mere availability of the source with the freedom to use, modify, and redistribute it. On the other hand,
the "free software" term was criticized for the ambiguity of the word "free" as "available at no cost", which
was seen as discouraging for business adoption,[75] and for the historical ambiguous usage of the
term.[8][76][77]

Developers have used the alternative terms Free and Open Source Software (FOSS), or Free/Libre and
Open Source Software (FLOSS), consequently, to describe open-source software that is also free
software.[78] While the definition of open source software is very similar to the FSF's free software
definition[79] it was based on the Debian Free Software Guidelines, written and adapted primarily by Bruce
Perens with input from Eric S. Raymond and others.[80]

The term "open source" was originally intended to be trademarkable; however, the term was deemed too
descriptive, so no trademark exists.[81] The OSI would prefer that people treat open source as if it were a
trademark, and use it only to describe software licensed under an OSI approved license.[82]

OSI Certified is a trademark licensed only to people who are distributing software licensed under a license
listed on the Open Source Initiative's list.[83]

Open-source versus source-available

Although the OSI definition of "open-source software" is widely accepted, a small number of people and
organizations use the term to refer to software where the source is available for viewing, but which may not
legally be modified or redistributed. Such software is more often referred to as source-available, or as
shared source, a term coined by Microsoft in 2001.[84] While in 2007 two of Microsoft's Shared Source
Initiative licenses were certified by the OSI, most licenses from the SSI program are still source-available
only.[85]

Open-sourcing

Open-sourcing is the act of propagating the open source movement, most often referring to releasing
previously proprietary software under an open source/free software license,[86] but it may also refer
programming Open Source software or installing Open Source software.

Notable software packages, previously proprietary, which have been open sourced include:

Netscape Navigator, the code of which became the basis of the Mozilla and Mozilla Firefox
web browsers
StarOffice, which became the base of the OpenOffice.org office suite and LibreOffice
Global File System, was originally GPL'd, then made proprietary in 2001(?), but in 2004 was
re-GPL'd.
SAP DB, which has become MaxDB, and is now distributed (and owned) by MySQL AB
InterBase database, which was open sourced by Borland in 2000 and presently exists as a
commercial product and an open-source fork (Firebird)

Before changing the license of software, distributors usually audit the source code for third party licensed
code which they would have to remove or obtain permission for its relicense. Backdoors and other malware
should also be removed as they may easily be discovered after release of the code.

Current applications and adoption

"We migrated key

Widely used open-source software
functions from
Windows to Linux
Open-source software projects are built and maintained by a network of
because we needed
volunteer programmers and are widely used in free as well as commercial
an operating system
products.[38] Prime examples of open-source products are the Apache HTTP that was stable and
Server, the e-commerce platform osCommerce, internet browsers Mozilla reliable – one that
Firefox and Chromium (the project where the vast majority of development
would give us in-
of the freeware Google Chrome is done) and the full office suite LibreOffice.
house control. So if
One of the most successful open-source products is the GNU/Linux
we needed to patch,
operating system, an open-source Unix-like operating system, and its
adjust, or adapt, we
derivative Android, an operating system for mobile devices.[89][90] In some could."
industries, open-source software is the norm.[91]

Official statement of
Extensions for non-software use the United Space
Alliance, which
While the term "open source" applied originally only to the source code of manages the computer
software,[92] it is now being applied to many other areas[93] such as Open systems for the
source ecology,[94] a movement to decentralize technologies so that any International Space
human can use them. However, it is often misapplied to other areas that have Station (ISS),
different and competing principles, which overlap only partially. regarding why they
chose to switch from
The same principles that underlie open-source software can be found in many Windows to Debian
other ventures, such as open-source hardware, Wikipedia, and open-access GNU/Linux on the
publishing. Collectively, these principles are known as open source, open ISS[87][88]
content, and open collaboration:[95] "any system of innovation or production
that relies on goal-oriented yet loosely coordinated participants, who interact
to create a product (or service) of economic value, which they make available
to contributors and non-contributors alike."[3]

This "culture" or ideology takes the view that the principles apply more generally to facilitate concurrent
input of different agendas, approaches, and priorities, in contrast with more centralized models of
development such as those typically used in commercial companies.[96]

See also
Comparison of free and open-source software licenses
Free software
Free software community
Free software license
Free software movement
List of free and open-source software packages
Open content
Open-source hardware
Open Source Initiative
Open-source license
Open-source software advocacy
Open Source Software Institute
Open-source software security
Open-source video game
All articles with titles containing "Open source"
Proprietary software
Shared source
Timeline of free and open-source software

References
1. St. Laurent, Andrew M. (2008). Understanding Open Source and Free Software Licensing (h
ttps://books.google.com/books?id=04jG7TTLujoC&pg=PA4). O'Reilly Media. p. 4.
ISBN 9780596553951.
2. Corbly, James Edward (25 September 2014). "The Free Software Alternative: Freeware,
Open Source Software, and Libraries" (http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ital/article/view/
5105). Information Technology and Libraries. 33 (3): 65. doi:10.6017/ital.v33i3.5105 (https://d
oi.org/10.6017%2Fital.v33i3.5105). ISSN 2163-5226 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/2163-52
26).
3. Levine, Sheen S.; Prietula, Michael J. (30 December 2013). "Open Collaboration for
Innovation: Principles and Performance". Organization Science. 25 (5): 1414–1433.
arXiv:1406.7541 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1406.7541). doi:10.1287/orsc.2013.0872 (https://doi.or
g/10.1287%2Forsc.2013.0872). ISSN 1047-7039 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1047-7039).
S2CID 6583883 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:6583883).
 4. Rothwell, Richard (5 August 2008). "Creating wealth with free software" (https://web.archive.
org/web/20080908033859/http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/community_posts/creating
_wealth_free_software). Free Software Magazine. Archived from the original (http://www.free
softwaremagazine.com/community_posts/creating_wealth_free_software) on 8 September
2008. Retrieved 8 September 2008.
5. "Standish Newsroom — Open Source" (https://web.archive.org/web/20120118001419/http://
standishgroup.com/newsroom/open_source.php) (Press release). Boston. 16 April 2008.
Archived from the original (http://standishgroup.com/newsroom/open_source.php) on 18
January 2012. Retrieved 8 September 2008.
6. Gaudeul, Alexia (2007). "Do Open Source Developers Respond to Competition? The LaTeX
Case Study". Review of Network Economics. 6 (2). doi:10.2202/1446-9022.1119 (https://doi.
org/10.2202%2F1446-9022.1119). ISSN 1446-9022 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1446-90
22). S2CID 201097782 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:201097782).
7. VM Brasseur (2018). Forge your Future with Open Source (https://archive.org/details/isbn_9
781680503012). Pragmatic Programmers. ISBN 978-1-68050-301-2.
8. Karl Fogel (2016). "Producing Open Source Software – How to Run a Successful Free
Software Project" (http://producingoss.com/en/introduction.html#free-vs-open-source).
O'Reilly Media. Retrieved 11 April 2016. "But the problem went deeper than that. The word
"free" carried with it an inescapable moral connotation: if freedom was an end in itself, it
didn't matter whether free software also happened to be better, or more profitable for certain
businesses in certain circumstances. Those were merely pleasant side effects of a motive
that was, at its root, neither technical nor mercantile, but moral. Furthermore, the "free as in
freedom" position forced a glaring inconsistency on corporations who wanted to support
particular free programs in one aspect of their business, but continue marketing proprietary
software in others."
9. "History of the OSI" (http://opensource.org/history). Opensource.org.
10. B. Charny (3 May 2001). "Microsoft Raps Open-Source Approach" (https://www.cnet.com/ne
ws/microsoft-raps-open-source-approach/). CNET.
11. Jeffrey Voas, Keith W. Miller & Tom Costello. Free and Open Source Software. IT
Professional 12(6) (November 2010), pg. 14–16.
12. Eric S. Raymond. "Goodbye, "free software"; hello, "open source" " (http://www.catb.org/~es
r/open-source.html). catb.org. "The problem with it is twofold. First, ... the term "free" is very
ambiguous ... Second, the term makes a lot of corporate types nervous."
13. Kelty, Christpher M. (2008). "The Cultural Significance of free Software – Two Bits" (http://tw
obits.net/pub/Kelty-TwoBits.pdf) (PDF). Duke University press – durham and london. p. 99.
"Prior to 1998, Free Software referred either to the Free Software Foundation (and the
watchful, micromanaging eye of Stallman) or to one of thousands of different commercial,
avocational, or university-research projects, processes, licenses, and ideologies that had a
variety of names: sourceware, freeware, shareware, open software, public domain software,
and so on. The term Open Source, by contrast, sought to encompass them all in one
movement."
14. Shea, Tom (23 June 1983). "Free software – Free software is a junkyard of software spare
parts" (https://books.google.com/books?id=yy8EAAAAMBAJ&q=us+government+public+do
main+software&pg=PA31). InfoWorld. Retrieved 10 February 2016. ""In contrast to
commercial software is a large and growing body of free software that exists in the public
domain. Public-domain software is written by microcomputer hobbyists (also known as
"hackers") many of whom are professional programmers in their work life. [...] Since
everybody has access to source code, many routines have not only been used but
dramatically improved by other programmers.""
15. Raymond, Eric S. (8 February 1998). "Goodbye, "free software"; hello, "open source" " (htt
p://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html). Retrieved 13 August 2008. "After the Netscape
announcement broke in January I did a lot of thinking about the next phase – the serious
push to get "free software" accepted in the mainstream corporate world. And I realized we
have a serious problem with "free software" itself. Specifically, we have a problem with the
term "free software", itself, not the concept. I've become convinced that the term has to go."
16. Ryan, Patrick S.; Casson, Tony (May 2006). "Open Standards, Open Source Adoption in the
Public Sector, and Their Relationship to Microsoft's Market Dominance by Tony Casson,
Patrick S. Ryan :: SSRN". Papers.ssrn.com. SSRN 1656616 (https://ssrn.com/abstract=1656
616).
17. Holtgrewe, Ursula (2004). "Articulating the Speed(s) of the Internet: The Case of Open
Source/Free Software" (http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/12259). Time &
Society (Submitted manuscript). 13: 129–146. doi:10.1177/0961463X04040750 (https://doi.o
rg/10.1177%2F0961463X04040750). S2CID 61327593 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/Cor
pusID:61327593).
18. "Open Source Pioneers Meet in Historic Summit" (http://www.oreilly.com/pub/pr/796). 14
April 1998. Retrieved 20 September 2014.
19. Muffatto, Moreno (2006). Open Source: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Imperial College
Press. ISBN 978-1-86094-665-3.
20. "How I coined the term 'open source' " (https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-ope
n-source-software).
21. "NETSCAPE ANNOUNCES PLANS TO MAKE NEXT-GENERATION COMMUNICATOR
SOURCE CODE AVAILABLE FREE ON THE NET" (https://web.archive.org/web/20070401
072854/http://wp.netscape.com/newsref/pr/newsrelease558.html). Netscape
Communications Corporation. 22 January 1998. Archived from the original (http://wp.netsca
pe.com/newsref/pr/newsrelease558.html) on 1 April 2007. Retrieved 8 August 2013. "BOLD
MOVE TO HARNESS CREATIVE POWER OF THOUSANDS OF INTERNET
DEVELOPERS; COMPANY MAKES NETSCAPE NAVIGATOR AND COMMUNICATOR
4.0 IMMEDIATELY FREE FOR ALL USERS, SEEDING MARKET FOR ENTERPRISE
AND NETCENTER BUSINESSES"
22. "MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif., April 1 /PRNewswire/ -- Netscape Communications and open
source developers are celebrating the first anniversary, March 31, 1999, of the release of
Netscape's browser source code to mozilla.org" (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/
netscape-celebrates-first-anniversary-of-open-source-software-release-to-mozillaorg-73806
207.html). Netscape Communications. 31 March 1999. Retrieved 10 January 2013. "[...]The
organization that manages open source developers working on the next generation of
Netscape's browser and communication software. This event marked a historical milestone
for the Internet as Netscape became the first major commercial software company to open its
source code, a trend that has since been followed by several other corporations. Since the
code was first published on the Internet, thousands of individuals and organizations have
downloaded it and made hundreds of contributions to the software. Mozilla.org is now
celebrating this one-year anniversary with a party Thursday night in San Francisco."
23. "International Authority & Recognition" (https://opensource.org/authority). Opensource.org.
24. "List of OSI Affiliates" (https://opensource.org/affiliates/list). Opensource.org.
25. "OSI Affiliate Agreement" (https://opensource.org/affiliateAgreement). Opensource.org.
26. Perens, Bruce. Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution (http://www.oreilly.c
om/catalog/opensources/book/perens.html). O'Reilly Media. 1999.
27. Dibona, Chris; Ockman, Sam (January 1999). The Open Source Definition by Bruce Perens
(https://archive.org/details/isbn_9781565925823). ISBN 978-1-56592-582-3.
28. "The Open Source Definition" (http://opensource.org/docs/osd)., The Open Source Definition
according to the Open Source Initiative
29. "How Many Open Source Licenses Do You Need? – Slashdot" (http://news.slashdot.org/co
mments.pl?sid=1129863&cid=26875815). News.slashdot.org. 16 February 2009. Retrieved
25 March 2012.
30. Open Source Initiative. "The Open Source Definition (Annotated)" (https://opensource.org/os
d-annotated). opensource.org. Retrieved 22 July 2016.
31. Tiemann, Michael. "History of the OSI" (https://web.archive.org/web/20060924132022/http://
www.opensource.org/docs/history.php). Open Source Initiative. Archived from the original (ht
tp://www.opensource.org/docs/history.php) on 24 September 2006. Retrieved 13 May 2014.
32. Stallman, Richard (16 June 2007). "Why "Open Source" misses the point of Free Software"
(https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html). Philosophy of the GNU
Project. Free Software Foundation. Retrieved 23 July 2007. "As the advocates of open
source draw new users into our community, we free software activists have to work even
more to bring the issue of freedom to those new users' attention. We have to say, 'It's free
software and it gives you freedom!'—more and louder than ever. Every time you say 'free
software' rather than 'open source,' you help our campaign."
33. Stallman, Richard (19 June 2007). "Why "Free Software" is better than "Open Source" " (http
s://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html). Philosophy of the GNU Project.
Free Software Foundation. Retrieved 23 July 2007. "Sooner or later these users will be
invited to switch back to proprietary software for some practical advantage Countless
companies seek to offer such temptation, and why would users decline? Only if they have
learned to value the freedom free software gives them, for its own sake. It is up to us to
spread this idea—and in order to do that, we have to talk about freedom. A certain amount of
the 'keep quiet' approach to business can be useful for the community, but we must have
plenty of freedom talk too."
34. Stallman, Richard (16 June 2007). "Why "Open Source" misses the point of Free Software"
(https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html). Philosophy of the GNU
Project. Free Software Foundation. Retrieved 23 July 2007. "Under the pressure of the
movie and record companies, software for individuals to use is increasingly designed
specifically to restrict them. This malicious feature is known as DRM or Digital Restrictions
Management (see DefectiveByDesign.org), and it is the antithesis in spirit of the freedom
that free software aims to provide. [...] Yet some open source supporters have proposed
'open source DRM' software. Their idea is that by publishing the source code of programs
designed to restrict your access to encrypted media, and allowing others to change it, they
will produce more powerful and reliable software for restricting users like you. Then it will be
delivered to you in devices that do not allow you to change it. This software might be 'open
source,' and use the open source development model; but it won't be free software since it
won't respect the freedom of the users that actually run it. If the open source development
model succeeds in making this software more powerful and reliable for restricting you, that
will make it even worse."
35. Rosen, Lawrence. "Joint Works – Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and
Intellectual Property Law" (http://flylib.com/books/en/4.467.1.24/1/). flylib.com. Retrieved
22 July 2016.
36. Andrew T. Pham, Verint Systems Inc., and Matthew B. Weinstein and Jamie L. Ryerson.
"Easy as ABC: Categorizing Open Source Licenses (http://www.ipo.org/AM/Template.cfm?S
ection=Patents&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=26682) Archived (https://we
b.archive.org/web/20121108031149/http://www.ipo.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Patents&
Template=%2FCM%2FContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=26682) 8 November 2012 at the
Wayback Machine"; www.IPO.org. June 2010.
37. Shiels, Maggie (14 August 2008). "Legal milestone for open source" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/
1/hi/technology/7561943.stm). BBC News. Retrieved 15 August 2008.
38. Popp, Dr. Karl Michael (2015). Best Practices for commercial use of open source software.
Norderstedt, Germany: Books on Demand. ISBN 978-3738619096.
39. [1] (http://www.iist.unu.edu) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20071115223300/http://w
ww.iist.unu.edu/) 15 November 2007 at the Wayback Machine
40. [2] (http://opencert.iist.unu.edu) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20071207171952/htt
p://opencert.iist.unu.edu/) 7 December 2007 at the Wayback Machine
41. Raymond, Eric S. (11 September 2000). "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" (http://www.catb.or
g/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/index.html). Retrieved 19 September
2004.
42. Robles, Gregorio (2004). "A Software Engineering Approach to Libre Software" (http://www.
opensourcejahrbuch.de/download/jb2004/chapter_03/III-3-Robles.pdf) (PDF). In Robert A.
Gehring, Bernd Lutterbeck (ed.). Open Source Jahrbuch 2004 (http://www.opensourcejahrbu
ch.de) (PDF). Berlin: Technical University of Berlin. Retrieved 11 February 2020.
43. Ghosh, R.A.; Robles, G.; Glott, R. (2002). "Free/Libre and Open Source Software: Survey
and Study Part V". Maastricht: International Institute of Infonomics.
44. US Department of Defense. "Open Source Software FAQ" (http://dodcio.defense.gov/Open-
Source-Software-FAQ/). Chief Information Officer. Retrieved 22 July 2016.
45. Sharma, Srinarayan; Vijayan Sugumaran; Balaji Rajagopalan (2002). "A framework for
creating hybrid-open source software communities" (http://www.cin.ufpe.br/~in953/lectures/p
apers/ISJAFrameworkForCreatingHybrid-OpenSourceSoftwareCommunities.pdf) (PDF).
Information Systems Journal. 12: 7–25. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2575.2002.00116.x (https://doi.or
g/10.1046%2Fj.1365-2575.2002.00116.x). S2CID 5815589 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/
CorpusID:5815589).
46. Landry, John; Rajiv Gupta (September 2000). "Profiting from Open Source". Harvard
Business Review. doi:10.1225/F00503 (https://doi.org/10.1225%2FF00503).
47. Reynolds, Carl; Jeremy Wyatt (February 2011). "Open Source, Open Standards, and Health
Care Information Systems" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3221346).
Journal of Medical Internet Research. 13 (1): e24. doi:10.2196/jmir.1521 (https://doi.org/10.2
196%2Fjmir.1521). PMC 3221346
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3221346). PMID 21447469 (https://pubmed.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21447469).
48. Nagle, Frank (3 March 2019). "Government Technology Policy, Social Value, and National
Competitiveness" (https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3355486). Rochester, NY.
49. Plotkin, Hal (December 1998). "What (and Why) you should know about open-source
software". Harvard Management Update: 8–9.
50. Payne, Christian (February 2002). "On the Security of Open Source Software". Information
Systems Journal. 12 (1): 61–78. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2575.2002.00118.x (https://doi.org/10.10
46%2Fj.1365-2575.2002.00118.x). S2CID 8123076 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusI
D:8123076).
51. "GNU Classpath Hacker's Guide: GNU Classpath Hacker's Guide" (https://www.gnu.org/soft
ware/classpath/docs/hacking.html). Gnu.org. 11 August 2003. Retrieved 25 March 2012.
52. Meffert, Klaus; Neil Rotstan (2007). "Brief summary of coding style and practice used in
JGAP" (https://archive.today/20121225112210/http://jgap.sourceforge.net/doc/codestyle.htm
l). Java Genetic Algorithms Package. Archived from the original (http://jgap.sourceforge.net/d
oc/codestyle.html) on 25 December 2012. Retrieved 8 September 2008.
53. Tripp, Andy (16 July 2007). "Classpath hackers frustrated with slow OpenJDK process" (http
s://www.webcitation.org/6671kDV9H?url=http://www.javalobby.org/java/forums/t98834.html).
Javalobby. Archived from the original (http://www.javalobby.org/java/forums/t98834.html) on
12 March 2012. Retrieved 2 May 2008.
54. Stamelos, Ioannis; Lefteris Angelis; Apostolos Oikonomou; Georgios L. Bleris (2002). "Code
Quality Analysis in Open Source Software Development". Info System Journal. 12: 43–60.
doi:10.1109/MS.2007.2 (https://doi.org/10.1109%2FMS.2007.2). S2CID 18538582 (https://ap
i.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:18538582).
55. Gallivan, Michael J. (2001). "Striking a Balance Between Trust and Control in a Virtual
Organization: A Content Analysis of Open Source Software Case Studies" (https://semantics
cholar.org/paper/09b2e5bb4e94cc7ba5d5c72cf8c19378e89714ef). Information Systems
Journal. 11 (4): 277–304. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2575.2001.00108.x (https://doi.org/10.1046%2
Fj.1365-2575.2001.00108.x). S2CID 11868077 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:11
868077).
56. Boldyreff, Cornelia; Lavery, Janet; Nutter, David; Rank, Stephen. "Open Source
Development Processes and Tools" (http://flosshub.org/system/files/15-18.pdf) (PDF).
Flosshub. Retrieved 22 July 2016.
57. Stansberry, Glen (18 September 2008). "7 Version Control Systems Reviewed – Smashing
Magazine" (https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2008/09/the-top-7-open-source-version-co
ntrol-systems/). Smashing Magazine. Retrieved 22 July 2016.
58. Frantzell, Lennart (18 July 2016). "GitHub, Launchpad and BitBucket, how today's
distributed version control systems are fueling the unprecendented global open source
revolution" (https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/blogs/iic-san-mateo/entry/githu
b_and_bitbucket_how_today_s_distributed_version_control_systems_are_fueling_the_unpr
ecendentet_global_open_source_revolution4?lang=en). IBM developerworks. Retrieved
22 July 2016.
59. Baker, Jason. "Top 4 open source issue tracking tools" (https://opensource.com/business/16/
2/top-issue-support-and-bug-tracking-tools). opensource.com. Retrieved 22 July 2016.
60. François Letellier (2008), Open Source Software: the Role of Nonprofits in Federating
Business and Innovation Ecosystems (https://web.archive.org/web/20120806090557/http://fl
et.netcipia.net/xwiki/bin/download/Main/publications%2Dfr/GEM2008%2DFLetellier%2DSu
bmittedPaper.pdf), AFME 2008.
61. Open Source Software Institute. "Home" (http://www.ossinstitute.org/). Open Source
Software Institute. Retrieved 22 July 2016.
62. Hellekson, Gunnar. "Home" (https://web.archive.org/web/20151201150537/http://opensourc
eforamerica.org/). Open Source for America. Archived from the original (http://opensourcefor
america.org/) on 1 December 2015. Retrieved 25 March 2012.
63. from EntandoSrl (Entando ). "Mil-OSS" (http://mil-oss.org/). Retrieved 25 March 2012.
64. Irina Guseva (@irina_guseva) (26 March 2009). "Bad Economy Is Good for Open Source" (h
ttp://www.cmswire.com/cms/web-cms/bad-economy-is-good-for-open-source-004187.php).
Cmswire.com. Retrieved 25 March 2012.
65. "Open Source vs. Proprietary Software" (https://www.pcworld.com/article/243136/open_sour
ce_vs_proprietary_software.html). PCWorld Business Center. Pcworld.com. 3 November
2011. Retrieved 25 March 2012.
66. Geoff Spick (@Goffee71) (26 October 2009). "Open Source Movement Finds Friends at the
White House" (http://www.cmswire.com/cms/web-cms/open-source-movement-finds-friends-
at-the-white-house-005867.php). Cmswire.com. Retrieved 25 March 2012.
67. "Pandora's box for open source" (https://www.cnet.com/news/pandoras-box-for-open-sourc
e/). CNET. 12 February 2004. Retrieved 25 March 2012.
68. Murphy, David (15 August 2010). "Survey: 98 Percent of Companies Use Open-Source, 29
Percent Contribute Back" (https://www.pcmag.com/archive/survey-98-percent-of-companies-
use-open-source-29-percent-contribute-back-253661). PCMag.com. Retrieved 25 March
2012.
69. "Homeland Security helps secure open-source code" (https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-a
nd-software/homeland-security-helps-secure-open-source-code/). CNET. Retrieved
25 March 2012.
70. Greenley, Neil. "Open Source Software Survey" (https://web.archive.org/web/201306220251
28/http://oss-survey.org/). Archived from the original (http://www.oss-survey.org/) on 22 June
2013. Retrieved 9 October 2012.
71. Boulanger, A. (2005). Open-source versus proprietary software: Is one more reliable and
secure than the other? IBM Systems Journal, 44(2), 239–248.
72. Seltzer, Larry (4 May 2004). "Is Open-Source Really Safer?" (https://www.pcmag.com/archiv
e/is-open-source-really-safer-124329). PCMag.com. Retrieved 25 March 2012.
73. Michelle Delio (14 December 2004). "Linux: Fewer Bugs Than Rivals" (http://archive.wired.c
om/software/coolapps/news/2004/12/66022). Wired. Retrieved 23 May 2016.
74. "Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software – GNU Project – Free Software
Foundation" (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html).
Gnu.org. Retrieved 30 March 2015.
75. "Goodbye, "free software"; hello, "open source" " (http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.htm
l). "The problem with it is twofold. First, ... the term "free" is very ambiguous ... Second, the
term makes a lot of corporate types nervous."
76. Kelty, Christpher M. (2008). "The Cultural Significance of free Software – Two Bits" (http://tw
obits.net/pub/Kelty-TwoBits.pdf) (PDF). Duke University press – Durham and London. p. 99.
"Prior to 1998, Free Software referred either to the Free Software Foundation (and the
watchful, micromanaging eye of Stallman) or to one of thousands of different commercial,
avocational, or university-research projects, processes, licenses, and ideologies that had a
variety of names: sourceware, freeware, shareware, open software, public domain software,
and so on. The term Open Source, by contrast, sought to encompass them all in one
movement."
77. OSI. "History of OSI" (http://opensource.org/history). "conferees decided it was time to dump
the moralizing and confrontational attitude that had been associated with "free software" in
the past and sell the idea strictly on the same pragmatic, business-case grounds"
78. Stallman, Richard. "FLOSS and FOSS" (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.ht
ml). Free Software Foundation. Retrieved 22 July 2016.
79. Stallman, Richard (16 June 2007). "Why "Open Source" misses the point of Free Software"
(https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html). Philosophy of the GNU
Project. GNU Project. Retrieved 23 July 2007.
80. Tiemann, Michael (19 September 2006). "History of the OSI" (http://www.opensource.org/hist
ory). Open Source Initiative. Retrieved 23 August 2008.
81. Nelson, Russell (26 March 2007). "Certification Mark" (https://web.archive.org/web/2008020
6050627/http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.html). Open Source Initiative.
Archived from the original (http://opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.html) on 6 February
2008. Retrieved 22 July 2007.
82. Raymond, Eric S. (22 November 1998). "OSI Launch Announcement" (http://www.opensourc
e.org/pressreleases/osi-launch.php). Open Source Initiative. Retrieved 22 July 2007.
83. Nelson, Russell (19 September 2006). "Open Source Licenses by Category" (http://opensou
rce.org/licenses). Open Source Initiative. Retrieved 22 July 2007.
84. "Microsoft announces expansion of Shared Source Initiative" (https://www.geekzone.co.nz/c
ontent.asp?contentid=4253). Geekzone.co.nz. 21 March 2005. Retrieved 30 March 2015.
85. "OSI Approves Microsoft License Submissions" (http://opensource.org/node/207).
opensource.org. 17 October 2007. Retrieved 8 August 2013. "Acting on the advice of the
License Approval Chair, the OSI Board today approved the Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL)
and the Microsoft Reciprocal License (Ms-RL). The decision to approve was informed by the
overwhelming (though not unanimous) consensus from the open source community that
these licenses satisfied the 10 criteria of the Open Source definition, and should, therefore,
be approved."
86. Agerfalk, Par and Fitzgerald, Brian (2008), Outsourcing to an Unknown Workforce: Exploring
Opensourcing as a Global Sourcing Strategy, MIS Quarterly, Vol 32, No 2, pp.385–410
87. Gunter, Joel (10 May 2013). "International Space Station to boldly go with Linux over
Windows" (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10049444/International-Space-Stat
ion-to-boldly-go-with-Linux-over-Windows.html). The Telegraph. Archived (https://ghostarchi
ve.org/archive/20220111/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10049444/Internatio
nal-Space-Station-to-boldly-go-with-Linux-over-Windows.html) from the original on 11
January 2022.
88. Bridgewater, Adrian (13 May 2013). "International Space Station adopts Debian Linux, drops
Windows & Red Hat into airlock" (http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/open-source-inside
r/2013/05/international-space-station-adopts-debian-linux-drop-windows-red-hat-into-airloc
k.html). Computer Weekly.
89. Michael J. Gallivan, "Striking a Balance Between Trust and Control in a Virtual Organization:
A Content Analysis of Open Source Software Case Studies", Info Systems Journal 11
(2001): 277–304
90. Hal Plotkin, "What (and Why) you should know about open source software" Harvard
Management Update 12 (1998): 8–9
91. Noyes, Katherine (18 May 2011). "Open Source Software Is Now a Norm in Businesses" (htt
p://www.pcworld.com/article/228136/open_source_software_now_a_norm_in_businesses.h
tml). PCWorld. Retrieved 22 July 2016.
92. Stallman, Richard (24 September 2007). "Why "Open Source" misses the point of Free
Software" (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html). Philosophy
of the GNU Project. Free Software Foundation. Retrieved 6 December 2007. "However, not
all of the users and developers of free software agreed with the goals of the free software
movement. In 1998, a part of the free software community splintered off and began
campaigning in the name of 'open source.' The term was originally proposed to avoid a
possible misunderstanding of the term 'free software,' but it soon became associated with
philosophical views quite different from those of the free software movement."
93. "What is open source?" (http://opensource.com/resources/what-open-source). Retrieved
29 July 2013.
94. "Open Source Ecology" (http://www.openfarmtech.org). "...building the world's first replicable
open source self-sufficient decentralized high-appropriate-tech permaculture ecovillage..."
95. "Open Collaboration Bitcoin" (http://www.informs.org/About-INFORMS/News-Room/Press-R
eleases/Open-Collaboration-Bitcoin). Informs.org. 2 January 2014. Retrieved 30 March
2015.
96. Raymond, Eric S. The Cathedral and the Bazaar. ed 3.0. 2000.

Further reading
Androutsellis-Theotokis, Stephanos; Spinellis, Diomidis; Kechagia, Maria; Gousios,
Georgios (2010). Open source software: A survey from 10,000 feet (http://www.dmst.aueb.gr/
dds/pubs/jrnl/2010-TOMS-OSS-Survey/html/ASKG10.pdf) (PDF). Foundations and Trends
in Technology, Information and Operations Management. Vol. 4. pp. 187–347.
doi:10.1561/0200000026 (https://doi.org/10.1561%2F0200000026). ISBN 978-1-60198-484-
5.
Coleman, E. Gabriella. Coding Freedom: The Ethics and Aesthetics of Hacking (Princeton
UP, 2012)
Fadi P. Deek; James A. M. McHugh (2008). Open Source: Technology and Policy (https://arc
hive.org/details/opensourcetechno0000deek). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
ISBN 978-0-511-36775-5.
Chris DiBona and Sam Ockman and Mark Stone, ed. (1999). Open Sources: Voices from the
Open Source Revolution (https://archive.org/details/isbn_9781565925823). O'Reilly.
ISBN 978-1-56592-582-3.
Joshua Gay, ed. (2002). Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M.
Stallman (https://archive.org/details/freesoftwarefree00rich). Boston: GNU Press, Free
Software Foundation. ISBN 978-1-882114-98-6.
Understanding FOSS | editor = Sampathkumar Coimbatore India (https://books.google.com/
books?id=2JwU71HSkikC&printsec=frontcover&dq=k.s.sampathkumar&source=bl&ots=wF
NsEJ7tDL&sig=VJLpX2YBhdIzs6b69qGa-hpWPBo&hl=en&ei=AC-1TcuRFcrtrQe1wI3IDQ&
sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCkQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false)
Benkler, Yochai (2002), "Coase's Penguin, or, Linux and The Nature of the Firm." Yale Law
Journal 112.3 (Dec 2002): p367(78) (http://www.benkler.org/CoasesPenguin.PDF) (in Adobe
pdf format)
v. Engelhardt, Sebastian (2008). "The Economic Properties of Software", Jena Economic
Research Papers, Volume 2 (2008), Number 2008-045 (https://ideas.repec.org/p/jrp/jrpwrp/2
008-045.html) (PDF).
Lerner, J. & Tirole, J. (2002): 'Some simple economics on open source', Journal of Industrial
Economics 50(2), p 197–234
Välimäki, Mikko (2005). The Rise of Open Source Licensing: A Challenge to the Use of
Intellectual Property in the Software Industry (https://web.archive.org/web/20090304002920/
http://pub.turre.com/openbook_valimaki.pdf) (PDF). Turre Publishing. Archived from the
original (http://pub.turre.com/openbook_valimaki.pdf) (PDF) on 4 March 2009.
Polley, Barry (11 December 2007). "Open Source Discussion Paper – version 1.0" (https://w
eb.archive.org/web/20180223161836/https://nzoss.org.nz/system/files/moj_oss_strategy_1.
0.pdf) (PDF). New Zealand Ministry of Justice. Archived from the original (http://nzoss.org.nz/
system/files/moj_oss_strategy_1.0.pdf) (PDF) on 23 February 2018. Retrieved 12 December
2007.
Rossi, M. A. (2006): Decoding the free/open-source software puzzle: A survey of theoretical
and empirical contributions, in J. Bitzer P. Schröder, eds, 'The Economics of Open Source
Software Development', p 15–55.
Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution (http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/ope
nsources/book/toc.html) — an online book containing essays from prominent members of
the open-source community
Berry, D M (2004). The Contestation of Code: A Preliminary Investigation into the Discourse
of the Free Software and Open Software Movement, Critical Discourse Studies, Volume
1(1). (https://web.archive.org/web/20060912222653/http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/berry
1.pdf)
Schrape, Jan-Felix (2017). "Open Source Projects as Incubators of Innovation. From Niche
Phenomenon to Integral Part of the Software Industry" (http://www.uni-stuttgart.de/soz/oi/publ
ikationen/soi_2017_3_Schrape.Open.Source.Projects.Incubators.Innovation.pdf) (PDF).
Stuttgart: Research Contributions to Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies 2017-
03.
Sustainable Open Source (https://wiki.evolveum.com/display/midPoint/Sustainable+Open+
Source), a Confluence article providing guidelines for fair participation in the open source
ecosystem, by Radovan Semancik
External links
The Open Source Initiative's definition of open source (http://opensource.org/docs/definition.
php)
Free / Open Source Research Community (https://web.archive.org/web/20050828004359/htt
p://opensource.mit.edu/online_papers.php) — Many online research papers about Open
Source
Open-source software (https://curlie.org/Computers/Open_Source/Software) at Curlie

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open-source_software&oldid=1076686067"

This page was last edited on 12 March 2022, at 11:53 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0;

additional terms may apply. By
using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.