Free and open source software ( FOSS ) is computer software That Can Be Both classified as free software and open-source software . [A] That is, anyone is freely licensedto use, copy, study, and change the software in any way, and the source code is openly shared so that people are encouraged to voluntarily improve the design of the software. [3] This is in contrast to proprietary software , where the software is under the restrictive copyright and the source code is usually hidden from the users.

The benefits of using FOSS software can include decreasing costs, Increasing security and stability (especially in regard to malware ), protecting privacy , and giving users more control over hardware Their Own. Free, open-source operating systems such as Linux and BSD are widely used today, powering millions of servers , desktops , smartphones (eg Android ), and other devices. [4] [5] Free software licenses and open-source licenses are used by many software packages .


In the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s to 1980s, it was common for computer users to have the source code for all programs they used, and the permission and ability to modify it for their own use. Software , including source code, was commonly shared by individuals who used computers. Most companies had a business model based on hardware sales, and provided or bundled software with hardware, free of charge. Citation needed ]Organizations of users and suppliers See, for example, SHARE and DECUS .

By the late 1960s, the prevailing business model around was changing software. A growing and evolving software industry was competing with the hardware manufacturer’s bundled software products; …………….. software directly. Leased machines required software support to provide customers with the most cost-effective solution. In United States vs. IBM , filed 17 January 1969, the government charged that bundled software was anticompetitive. [6] While some software might always be free, there would be a lot of software that was for sale only. In the 1970s and early 1980s, Some parts of the software industry Began using technical Measures (Such As only distributing binary copies of computer programs ) to prevent prevention computer users from being white to reliably use reverse engineering technology to study and customize software They HAD paid for. In 1980, the copyright law was extended to computer programs in the United States [7] -previously, computer programs could be considered, which are not copyrightable. [8] [9] The copyright law was extended to computer programs in the United States [7] -previously, computer programs could be considered, which processes are not copyrightable. [8] [9] The copyright law was extended to computer programs in the United States [7] -previously, computer programs could be considered, which processes are not copyrightable. [8] [9]

In 1983, Richard Stallman , longtime member of the hacker community at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory , annoncé the GNU project , Saying That He Had Become frustrated with the effects of the changes in cultivation of the computer industry and Its users. [10] Software development for the GNU operating system began in January 1984, and the Free Software Foundation (FSF) was founded in October 1985. An article outlining the project and its goals was published in March 1985 titled the GNU Manifesto . The manifesto included significant explanation of the GNU philosophy, Free Software Definition and ”

The Linux kernel , started by Linus Torvalds , was released as a freely modifiable source code in 1991. Initially, Linux was not released under a free or open source software license. However, with version 0.12 in February 1992, he relicensed the project under the GNU General Public License . [11] Much like Unix, Torvalds’ kernel attracted the attention of volunteer programmers. Citation needed ]

FreeBSD and NetBSD (both derived from 386BSD ) Were released as free software When the USL v. BSDi lawsuit Was-settled out of court in 1993. OpenBSD forked from NetBSD in 1995. Also in 1995, The Apache HTTP Server , Commonly Referred to as Apache, Was released under the Apache License 1.0 .

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 focus in early 1998 and Was one factor in motivating Netscape Communications Corporation to release Their popular Netscape Communicator Internet suite as free software . This code is better today Known As Mozilla Firefox and Thunderbird .

Netscape’s act prompted Raymond and others to look into how to bring the FSF’s free software ideas and perceived benefits to the commercial software industry. Netscape, and looked for a way to rebrand the free software movement to emphasize the business’s potential for sharing and collaborating on software source code. The new name They Chose was “open source” Quickly and Bruce Perens , publisher Tim O’Reilly , Linus Torvalds , and others were signed to the rebranding. The Open Source Initiative was founded in February 1998 to encourage use of the new term and evangelize open-source principles. [12]

While the Open Source Initiative has sought to encourage the use of the new term and evangelize the principles it adheres to, commercial software vendors are found to be increasingly threatened by the concept of freely distributed software and universal access to an application’s source code . A Microsoft executive publicly stated in 2001 that “open source is an intellectual property destroyer. I can not imagine something that could be worse than this for the business and intellectual-property business.” [13] This view perfectly summarizes the initial response to FOSS by some software corporations. Citation needed ] However, while FOSS HAS Historically played a role outside of the mainstream of private software development, companies have wide as Microsoft -have Begun to Develop Open Source official presences on the Internet. IBM, Oracle, Google and State Farm are just a few of the companies in a competitive open-source market. There has been a shift in the corporate philosophy concerning the development of free and open source software (FOSS). [14] There has been a shift in the corporate philosophy concerning the development of free and open source software (FOSS). [14] There has been a shift in the corporate philosophy concerning the development of free and open source software (FOSS). [14]


Free and open source software is an umbrella term for software that is free and open source software . Free and open source software is Provided free of charge, Allows the user to inspect the source code, and Provides a Relatively high level of control of the software’s functions Compared To proprietary software .

According to the Free Software Foundation, “Nearly all open source software is free software. The two terms describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for views based on fundamentally different values.” [15] Thus, the Open Source Initiative considers many free software licenses to also be open-source. These include the latest versions of the FSF’s three main licenses: the GPL, the Lesser General Public License (LGPL), and the GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL). [16] Thus, terminology of free and open source software is intended to be neutral on these philosophical disagreements.

(FOSS or F / OSS) or free / open and open source software (FLOSS).

Free software

Richard Stallman’s Free Software Definition , adopted by the Free Software Foundation (FSF), defines free software as a matter of liberty, not price. [17] The Earliest Known publication of the definition de son free software idea Was in the February 1986 edition [18] of the FSF’s now-discontinued GNU’s Bulletin publication. The canonical source for the paper is in the philosophy section of the GNU Project website. As of April 2008, it is published there in 39 languages. [19]

Open source

The Open Source Definition is used by the Open Source Initiative to determine whether a software qualified licensed for the organization’s insignia for open-source software . The definition was based on the Debian Free Software Guidelines , written and appended by Bruce Perens . [20] [21] Perens did not base his writing on the freedoms of free software from the Free Software Foundation , which were only available on the web. [22]Perens Subsequently stated that he felt Eric Raymond’s promotion of open source unfairly overshadowed the Free Software Foundation ‘ S efforts and reaffirmed his support for free software. [23] In the following 2000s he spoke about Open source again. [24] [25]


See also: Linux adoption , Free software § Adoption , and Open-source software § Adoption

Benefits over proprietary software

Privacy and security

See also: Open-source software security , Surveillance capitalism , Global monitoring disclosures (2013-present) , and Software update system

Manufacturers of proprietary, closed-source software are sometimes pressured to build in backdoors or other covert, undesired features into their software. [26] [27] [28] [29] Instead of having to trust the vendors’ users of FOSS, they can inspect and verify the source code themselves. [30] As Typically proprietary code is hidden from public view only the vendors and hackers Themselves May be aware of Any vulnerabilities in em [30] while FOSS Involves as Many People as feasible for Exposing bugs quickly. [31] [32]

Personal control, customizability and freedom

See also: Vendor lock-in

Users of FOSS from the freedoms to making unrestricted use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute such software. If They Would like to change the functionality of software They Can bring about exchange to the code and, If They wish, distribute Such modified versions of the software or Often – DEPENDING on the software’s decision making model and Its other users – Even push gold request Such changes to be made via updates to the original software. [33] [34] [35] [36] [30]

No costs

FOSS by definition is free of charge but donations are often encouraged. It also allows users to better test and compare software. [30]

Quality, collaboration and efficiency

See also: § Bugs and missing features

FOSS is the most widely used and widely used tool for generating profits . In addition, many organizations and individuals have contributed to this project. [30] It has been shown that technical superiority is typically the primary reason why companies choose open source software. [30] Companies could build in artificial barriers, inefficiencies or undesired functionality to increase monetary return.

Drawbacks to proprietary software

Security and user-support

See also: Common good , Public participation , and Proactive cyber defense § Measures

According to Linus’s Law the more people who can see and test a set of code, the more likely any flaws will be caught and fixed quickly. While this benefits from having the source code made public high levels of participation are not guaranteed. Having a grouping of full-time professionals in FOSS. [30] [31] [37] There is also a possibility that the FOSS may be undesired. Hardly readable.

In addition, it is possible to hackers to find vulnerabilities in it and write exploits. This HOWEVER Assumes That Such malicious hackers are more effective than white hat hackers qui Responsibly disclose or help fix the vulnerabilities, That no leaks or code exfiltration Occur and That reverse engineering of proprietary code is a hindrance of significance for malicious hackers. [31]

In general it can be found that FOSS is more secure and has good user-support with some exceptions of specific – especially niche or obsolete – software solutions.

Hard- and software compatibility

Often FOSS is not compatible with proprietary hardware or specific software. This Is Often due to manufacturers obstructing FOSS Such As by not Disclosing the interfaces or other specifications needed for members of the FOSS movement to write drivers for Their hardware – for instance As They wish customers to only run Their Own proprietary software or as They Might benefit From partnerships. [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [ additional citation needed ]

Bugs and missing features

While FOSS has more than one bugfix, it can be used as a bugfix. [45] [ additional citation needed ] FOSS project. Also unlike with a commercially available software, it can be used as a motivation, time and skill to do so. [37] [ additional citation needed ]

Less guarantees of development

FOSS projects in the field of FOSS. [46] [ citation needed additional ] HOWEVER companies aussi Often abolish unprofitable projects for being white and Often Rely on large companies and hence co-develop open source software. [32]

Missing applications

As the FOSS operating system distributions of GNU / Linux has a lower market share of end users there are also fewer applications available. [47] [48]

Technical skills and user-friendliness

GNU / Linux may require more effort or technical knowledge to set up and maintain. [47] As Many GNU / Linux users make extensive use of the command-line applications Lack Many user-friendliness Such As a GUI .

Adoption by governments

Main article: Adoption of free and open-source software by public institutions
See also: Sovereignty , National security , cyber emergency response team , and Global good public
This list is incomplete ; You can help by expanding it .
Country Description
 india The government of Kerala , India, announced its official support for free / open-source software in its State IT policy of 2001, [49] [ discuss ] which was formulated after the first ever free software conference in India, Freedom First! , Held in July 2001 in Trivandrum, the capital of Kerala. In 2009, Government of Kerala launched the International Center for Free and Open Source Software ( ICFOSS ). [50] In March 2015 the Indian government announced a policy of adoption of open source software. [51] [52]
 germany In the German City of Munich , conversion of 15,000 PCs and laptops from Microsoft Windows-based operating systems to a Debian -based Linux environment called LiMux spanned the ten years of 2003 to 2013. After successful completion of the project, more than 80% of All computers were running Linux. [53]
 Venezuela In 2004, a law in Venezuela (Decree 3390) went into effect, mandating a two-year transition to open source in all public agencies. As of June 2009, this ambitious transition was still under way. [55] [55] Malaysia launched the “Malaysian Public Sector Open Source Software Program”, saving millions on proprietary software licenses until 2008. [56] [57]
 peru In 2005 the Government of Peru voted to adopt open source across all its bodies. [58] The 2002 response to Microsoft’s review is available online. In the preamble to the bill, the Peruvian government stressed that the pillars of democracy were safeguarded: “The basic principles that inspire the law are bound to the basic guarantees of a state of law.” [59] In September, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts announced its formal adoption of the OpenDocument standard for all Commonwealth entities. [60]
 brazil In 2006, the Brazilian government has simultaneously encouraged the distribution of cheap computers running Linux through its poorer communities by subsidizing their purchase with tax breaks. [60]
 ecuador In April 2008, [61] Ecuador passed a similar law, Decree 1014, designed to migrate the public sector to Libre Software. [62]
 United States In February 2009, the United States White House moved its website to Linux servers using Drupal for content management. [63] In August 2016, the United States Government issued a new federal source code policy which mandates that at least 20% of custom source code be released as open-source software (OSS). [64] In addition, the policy requires that all source code be shared between agencies. The public release is under a three-year pilot program and agencies are obliged to collect data on this pilot to gauge its performance. The overall policy aims to reduce duplication, avoid vendor ‘lock-in’, And stimulate collaborative development. A new website code .gov provides “an online collection of tools, best practices, and schemes to help agencies implement this policy”, the policy announcement stated. It also provides the “primary discovery portal for custom-developed software for both Government and OSS”. [64] As yet unspecified OSS licenses will be added to the code. [65]
 la France In March 2009, the French Gendarmerie Nationale announced that it would totally switch to Ubuntu by 2015. The Gendarmerie began its transition to open source software in 2005 when it replaced Microsoft Office with across the entire organization. [66]
 jordan In January 2010, the Government of Jordan announced a partnership with Ingres Corporation (now named Actian), an open source database management company in the United States. [67]
 uganda In September 2014, the Uganda National Information Technology Authority (NITA-U) announced a call for feedback on an Open Source Strategy and Policy [68] at a workshop in conjunction with the ICT Association of Uganda.

Adoption by supranational unions and international organizations

“We migrated key functions from Windows to Linux because we needed an operating system that was stable and reliable – one that would give us in-house control.

Official statement of the United Space Alliance , qui marriages the computer systems for the International Space Station (ISS) Regarding Why They thing to switch from Windows to Linux on the ISS. [69] [70]

In 2017, the European Commission stated that “EU institutions should become open source software users themselves, even more than they already have” and listed open source software as one of the key drivers of innovation, together with big data , mobility, cloud computing And the internet of things . [71]


Issues and incidents

GPLv3 controversy

While copyright is the primary legal mechanism that FOSS authors use to ensure compliance for their software, other mechanisms such as legislation, patents, and trademarks have implications as well. In response to legal issues with patents and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), the Free Software Foundation released Version 3 of ict GNU Public License in 2007 Addressed Explicitly That the DMCA and patent rights.

After the development of the GNU GPLv3 in 2007, the FSF (as copyright holder of many pieces of the GNU system) updated Many citation needed ] of the GNU programs’ licenses from GPLv2 to GPLv3. On the other hand, the adoption of the new GPL version was heavily discussed in the FOSS ecosystem, [72] several projects decided against upgrading. For instance the Linux kernel , [73] [74] the BusyBox [75] [76] project, AdvFS , [77]Blender , [78] and have aussi the VLC media player Decided contre Adopting the GPLv3. [79]

Apple , a user of GCC and a heavy user of both DRM and patents, switched the compiler in its Xcode IDE from GCC to Clang , which is another FOSS compiler [80] but is under a permissive license . [81] LWN speculated that Apple was motivated by a desire to avoid GPLv3. [80] The Samba project also switched to GPLv3, so Apple replaced Samba in their software suite by a closed-source, proprietary software alternative. [82]

Skewed prioritization, ineffectiveness and egoism of developers

See also: Issue tracking system

Leemhuis critizes the prioritization of skilled developers who – instead of fixing issues in popular applications and desktop environments – create new, mostly redundant software to gain fame and fortune. [83]

He also criticizes notebook manufacturers for only optimizing their own products privately or creating workarounds instead of helping fix the causes of the many issues with GNU / Linux on notebooks as the unnecessary power consumption. [83]

Commercial ownership of open-source software

Mergers have affected major open-source software. Sun Microsystems (Sun) acquired MySQL AB , owner of the popular open-source MySQL database, in 2008. [84]

Oracle in turn buy Sun in January, 2010, acquiring their copyrights, patents, and trademarks. Thus, Oracle became the owner of both the most popular proprietary database and the most popular open-source database. Oracle’s attempts to commercialize the open-source MySQL database has raised concerns in the FOSS community. [85] Partly in response to uncertainty about the future of MySQL, the FOSS community forked the project into new database systems outside of Oracle’s control. These include MariaDB , Percona , and Drizzle . [86] All of these have distinct names; They are distinct projects and can not use the trademarked name MySQL. [87]

Legal cases

Oracle v. Google

In August, 2010, Oracle sued Google , claiming that its use of Java in Android infringed on Oracle’s copyrights and patents. The Oracle c. Google case ended in May 2012, with the finding that Google did not infringe on Oracle’s patents, and the trial judge ruled that the structure of the Java APIs used by Google was not copyrightable. The jury found that Google infringed a small number of copied files, but the parties stipulated that Google would pay no damages. [88] Oracle appealed to the Federal Circuit , and Google filed a cross-appeal on the literal copying claim. [89] Oracle won the appeal,

As part / driver of a new socioeconomic model

Main article: Open-source model
See also: The Zeitgeist Movement , Open content , Open science , Collaboration , Open Source Ecology , Open manufacturing , Sharing economy , and Post-scarcity economy

By defying ownership regulations in the building and use of information – a key area of contemporary growth – the Free / Open Source Software (FOSS) movement counters neoliberalism and privatization in general. [90]

By Realizing the historical potential of an ” economy of abundance ” for the new digital world FOSS May lay down a map for political resistance or show the way Towards a potential transformation of capitalism . [90]

Benkler’s new economy

According to Yochai Benkler , Jack N., and Lillian R. Berkman Professor for Entrepreneurial Legal Studies at Harvard Law School , free software is the most visible part of a new economy of commons-based peer production of information, knowledge, and culture. As examples, he cites a variety of FOSS projects, including both free software and open source. [91]

This new economy is already under development. To commercialize FOSS. Click here to register and get updates when this answer is edited. More valuable. Facebook was criticized in 2011 for using novel methods of tracking users to accomplish this. [92]

This new economy has alternatives. Apple’s App Stores have proven very popular with both users and developers. The Free Software Foundation considers Apple’s App Stores to be incompatible with its GPL and complained that Apple was infringing on the GPL with its iTunes terms of use. Rather than change the terms to comply with the GPL, Apple removed the GPL-licensed products from its App Stores. [93]

See also

  • FLOSS Manuals
  • FLOSS Weekly
  • Free software community
  • Free software license
  • Graphics hardware and FOSS
  • List of free and open source software packages
  • List of formerly proprietary software
  • Open-source license
  • Outline of free software


  1. Jump up^ FOSS is inclusive year term That covers Bothfree softwareandopen-source software, qui DESPITE Describing similar development models, philosophies and cultures-have Differing. [1] Freerefers to the users’ freedom to copy and re-use the software. TheFree Software Foundation, an organization that advocates the free software model, suggests that, to understand the concept, one should “think free in free speech, not as free beer”. (See “The Free Software Definition” . . Retrieved February 4, 2010 .) Free Software Focuses on the Fundamental Freedoms Gives it to users, (Open source software) on the peer-to-peer development model.[2] FOSS is a term that can be used without any bias towards either political approach.


  1. Jump up^ Feller 2005, pp. 89, 362.
  2. Jump up^ Feller 2005, pp. 101-106, 110-111.
  3. Jump up^ Free Software Foundation. “What is free software?” . Retrieved 14 December 2011 .
  4. Jump up^ Hatlestad 2005.
  5. Jump up^ Claburn 2007.
  6. Jump up^ Fisher, McKie & Mancke 1983.
  7. Jump up^ Computer Software 1980 Copyright Act, Pub. L. No. 96-517, 94 Stat. 3015, 3028.
  8. Jump up^ “Copyright Basics” .
  9. Jump up^ Weber 2009.
  10. Jump up^ William 2002.
  11. Jump up^ “Release notes for Linux kernel 0.12” .
  12. Jump up^ “History of the OSI” .
  13. Jump up^ Charny 2001.
  14. Jump up^ Miller, Voas & Costello 2010, pp. 14-16.
  15. Jump up^ Stallman n / a
  16. Jump up^ “Licenses by Name” . Open Source License . Open Source Initiative . Retrieved 23 October 2011 .
  17. Jump up^ “” . . 20 September 2011 . Retrieved 23 October 2011 .
  18. Jump up^ “GNU’s Bulletin, Volume 1 Number 1, page 8” .
  19. Jump up^ “The Free Software Definition – Translations of this page” .
  20. Jump up^ ” The Open Source Definition by Bruce Perens ” . , Open Source: Voices from the Open Source Revolution, January 1999,ISBN 1-56592-582-3
  21. Jump up^ ” The Open Source Definition ” . , The Open Source Definition according to the Open Source Initiative
  22. Jump up^ “” . . 16 February 2009 . Retrieved 23 October 2011 .
  23. Jump up^ “It’s Time to Talk About Free Software Again” .
  24. Jump up^ “Bruce Perens – State of Open Source Message: A New Decade For Open Source” . 1998-02-09. Archived from the original on 4 November 2013 . Retrieved 2009-07-15 .
  25. Jump up^ Barr, Joe (January 13, 2003). “Meet the Perens” . LinuxWorld Magazine .
  26. Jump up^ “Microsoft Back Doors” . . Retrieved 4 July 2017.
  27. Jump up^ “Microsoft Accidentally Leaks Key to Windows Backdoor – Schneier on Security” . . Retrieved 4 July2017 .
  28. Jump up^ Thomson, Iain. “Snowden leak: Microsoft added backdoor for Feds” . Retrieved 4 July 2017 .
  29. Jump up^ Strandburg, Katherine J .; Raicu, Daniela Stan (2005). Privacy and Technologies of Identity: A Cross-Disciplinary Conversation. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN  9780387260501 . Retrieved 4 July 2017 .
  30. ^ Jump up to:g “10 Reasons Open Source Is Good for Business” . PCWorld . Retrieved 4 July 2017 .
  31. ^ Jump up to:c “Open Source Software Is More Secure?” (PDF) . Retrieved 4 July 2017 .
  32. ^ Jump up to:b “Open source software is more secure than you think” . SC Media US. 8 October 2013 . Retrieved 12 July 2017 .
  33. Jump up^ Kirk, St Amant (2007). Handbook of Research on Open Source Software: Technological, Economic, and Social Perspectives . Idea Group Inc (IGI). ISBN  9781591408925 . Retrieved 4 July2017 .
  34. Jump up^ Jacquart, Rene (2008). Building the Information Society: IFIP 18th World Computer Congress Topical Sessions 22-27 August 2004 Toulouse, France . Springer. ISBN  9781402081576 . Retrieved 4 July 2017 .
  35. Jump up^ Lopez-Tarruella, Aurelio (2012). Google and the Law: Empirical Approaches to Legal Aspects of Knowledge-Economy Business Models . Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN  9789067048453 . Retrieved 4 July 2017 .
  36. Jump up^ “What is free software?” . . Retrieved 4 July2017 .
  37. ^ Jump up to:b “Too Big to Fail Open-Source Software Hacker Needs Help”. Observer. 4 November 2016 . Retrieved 12 July 2017 .
  38. Jump up^ Fogel, Karl (2005). Producing Open Source Software: How to Run a Successful Free Software Project . “O’Reilly Media, Inc.”. ISBN  9780596552992 . Retrieved 4 July 2017 .
  39. Jump up^ Sery, Paul G. (2007). Ubuntu Linux For Dummies . John Wiley & Sons. ISBN  9780470125052 . Retrieved 4 July 2017 .
  40. Jump up^ “Linux Today – KERNEL-DEV: UDI and Free Software by Richard Stallman” . . Retrieved 4 July 2017 .
  41. Jump up^ Vaughan-Nichols, Steven J. “Microsoft tries to block Linux off Windows 8 PCs | ZDNet” . ZDNet . Retrieved 12 July 2017 .
  42. Jump up^ Kingsley-Hughes, Adrian. “Lenovo reportedly blocking Linux on Windows 10 Signature Edition PCs (updated) | ZDNet” . ZDNet . Retrieved 12 July 2017 .
  43. Jump up^ “Linux Today – How Microsoft Exchange Changes the OEMs to GNU / Linux Sales” . . Retrieved 12 July2017 .
  44. Jump up^ “Microsoft ‘killed Dell Linux’ – States” . Retrieved 12 July 2017.
  45. Jump up^ Hill, Benjamin Mako. “When Free Software Is Not (Practically) Superior” . Retrieved 11 July 2017 .
  46. Jump up^ Arthur, Tatnall (2007). Encyclopedia of Portal Technologies and Applications . Idea Group Inc (IGI). ISBN  9781591409908 . Retrieved 11 July 2017 .
  47. ^ Jump up to:b Baldauf, Kenneth; Stair, Ralph (2008). Succeeding with Technology . Cengage Learning. ISBN  1423925297 . Retrieved 12 July 2017 .
  48. Jump up^ Mastering Information Technology for CXC CSEC CAPE . Dennis Adonis . Retrieved 12 July 2017 .
  49. Jump up^ ” ” Role of Open or Free Software, “Section 15 on page 20 of the State IT Policy (2001) of the Government of Kerala, copy available at the UN Public Administration Network (UNPAN) site”(PDF) .
  50. Jump up^ [ permanent dead link ]
  51. Jump up^ Alawadhi 2015.
  52. Jump up^ “Policy on Adoption of Open Source Software for Government of India” (PDF) .
  53. Jump up^ “Landeshauptstadt München – Aktuelle Zahlen” (in German). . Retrieved 2014-07-28 .
  54. Jump up^ (in Spanish) Venezuela Open Source ArchivedFebruary 16, 2008, at theWayback Machine.
  55. Jump up^ Chavez, Hugo F. (December 2004). “Publicado in the Gaceta oficial No 38.095 of fecha 28/12/2004” . Archived from the original on 9 August 2011 . Retrieved 23 October 2011 .
  56. Jump up^ “” . . Retrieved 23 October 2011 .
  57. Jump up^ “” . Retrieved 23 October 2011 .
  58. Jump up^ Clarke 2005.
  59. Jump up^ National Advisory Council on Innovation Open Software Working Group (July 2004). “Free / Open & Open Source Software and Open Standards in South Africa” (PDF) . Archived from the original (PDF) on December 22, 2014 . Retrieved 31 May 2008 .
  60. ^ Jump up to:b Casson & Ryan 2006 .
  61. Jump up^ “[News] Ecuador Ahead of the World with Democracy of Knowledge” .
  62. Jump up^ (in Spanish), Decree 1014
  63. Jump up^ Vaughan-Nichols 2009.
  64. ^ Jump up to:b Scott, Tony; Rung, Anne E (August 8, 2016). Federal Source Code Policy: Achieving Efficiency, Transparency, and Innovation through Reusable and Open Source Software – Memorandum for the Heads of Departments and Agencies – M-16-21 (PDF) . Washington DC, USA: Office of Budget and Management, Executive Office of the President . Retrieved 2016-09-14 . Also available as HTML at: sourcecode .cio .gov
  65. Jump up^ New, William (22 August 2016). “New US Government Code Policy Could Provide Model For Europe” . Intellectual Property Watch . Geneva, Switzerland . Retrieved 2016-09-14 .
  66. Jump up^ Paul 2009.
  67. Jump up^ “Jordan Information Ministry signs deal on open source – Government – News & Features” . . Retrieved 2012-04-23 .
  68. Jump up^ “Open Source Strategy & Policy”
  69. Jump up^ Gunter 2013.
  70. Jump up^ Bridgewater 2013.
  71. Jump up^ Directorate General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology (2017). The economic and social impact of software and services on competitiveness and innovation . ISBN  978-92-79-66177-8 .
  72. Jump up^ Mark (2008-05-08). “The Curse of Open Source License Proliferation” . . Retrieved 2015-11-30 . Currently the decision to move from GPL v2 to GPL v3 is being hotly debated by many open source projects. According to Palamida, a provider of IP compliance software, there have been roughly 2489 open source projects that have moved from GPL v2 to later versions.
  73. Jump up^ Torvalds, Linus. “COPYING” . . Retrieved 13 August 2013 . Also note that the particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly stated otherwise.
  74. Jump up^ Kerner, Sean Michael (2008-01-08). “Torvalds Still Keen On GPLv2” . . Retrieved 2015-02-12 . “In some ways, Linux was the project that really made the split clear between what the FSF is pushing which is very different from what open source and which Belief in freedom, “Torvalds told Zemlin. So, the GPL Version 3 reflects the FSF’s goals and the GPL Version 2 is where the kernel is. “
  75. Jump up^ corbet (2006-10-01). “Busy busybox busybox” . . Retrieved 2015-11-21 . Since BusyBox can be found in so many embedded systems, it finds itself at the core of the GPLv3 anti-DRM debate. […] The real outcomes, however, are this: BusyBox will be GPLv2 only starting with the next release. It is generally accepted that stripping out the “or any later version” is legally defensible, and that the merging of other GPLv2-only code will force that issue in any case
  76. Jump up^ Landley, Rob (2006-09-09). “Re: Move GPLv2 vs v3 fun …” . . Retrieved 2015-11-21 . Do not invent a straw man argument please. I consider licensing BusyBox under GPLv3 to be useless, unnecessary, overcomplicated, and confusing, and in addition to that it has downsides. 1) Useless: We’re never dropping GPLv2.
  77. Jump up^ Press release on the release of the AdvFS source code
  78. Jump up^ Prokoudine, Alexander (26 January 2012). “What’s up with DWG adoption in free software?” . Archived from the original on 2016-11-09 . Retrieved 2015-12-05 . [Blender’s Toni Roosendaal:] “Blender is also still” GPLv2 or later “For the time being we stick to that, moving to GPL 3 has no evident benefits I know of.”
  79. Jump up^ Denis-Courmont, Rémi. “VLC media player to remain under GNU GPL version 2” . . Retrieved 2015-11-21 . In 2001, VLC was released under the OSI-approved GNU General Public version 2, with the commonly-offered option to use “any later version” (though there was no such later version at the time). Following the release by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) of the new version 3 of its GNU General Public License (GPL) on the 29th of June 2007, contributors to the VLC media player, and other software projects hosted at, debated The possibility of updating the licensing terms for future versions of the VLC media player and other hosted projects, to version 3 of the GPL. [… ] There is a strong interest in the market for consumer electronics.It is our belief that changing our licensing terms to GPL version 3 would be the best interest of our community as a whole.VLC media player, the GPL version 2.
  80. ^ Jump up to:b Brockmeier 2010 .
  81. Jump up^ “LLVM Developer Policy” . LLVM . Retrieved November 19,2012 .
  82. Jump up^ Holwerda 2011.
  83. ^ Jump up to:b Leemhuis, Thorsten. “Kommentar: Linux scheitert an Egozentrik” (in German). Heise online . Retrieved 12 July 2017 .
  84. Jump up^ “Sun to Acquire MySQL” . MySQL AB . Retrieved 2008-01-16.
  85. Jump up^ Thomson 2011.
  86. Jump up^ Samson 2011.
  87. Jump up^ Nelson 2009.
  88. Jump up^ Niccolai 2012.
  89. Jump up^ Jones 2012.
  90. ^ Jump up to:b Georgopoulou, Panayiota (2009). “The free / open source software movement Resistance or change?” . Civitas – Revista de Ciências Sociais . 9 (1). ISSN  1519-6089 . Retrieved 11 July2017 .
  91. Jump up^ Benkler 2003.
  92. Jump up^ ElBoghdady & Tsukayama 2011.
  93. Jump up^ Vaughan-Nichols 2011.


  • Alawadhi, Neha (March 30, 2015). “Government announces policy on open source software” . The Times of India . Retrieved 2015-06-27 .
  • Benkler, Yochai (April 2003). “Freedom in the Commons: Towards a Political Economy of Information” . Duke Law Journal . 52 (6).
  • Bridgewater, Adrian (May 13, 2013). “International Space Station adopted Debian Linux, drops Windows & Red Hat into airlock” . Computer Weekly . Retrieved 2015-06-27 .
  • Brockmeier, Joe (September 15, 2010). “Apple’s Selective Contributions to GCC” . . Retrieved 2015-06-22 .
  • Casson, Tony; Ryan, Patrick S. (May 1, 2006). “Open Standards, Open Source Adoption in the Public Sector, and Their Relationship to Microsoft’s Market Dominance.” In Bolin, Sherrie. Standards Edge: Unify or Divider? . Sheridan Books. p. 87. ISBN  0974864854 . SSRN  1656616  .
  • Charny, B. (May 3, 2001). “Microsoft Raps Open-Source Approach” . CNET News .
  • Claburn, Thomas (January 17, 2007). “Study Finds Open Source Benefits Business” . InformationWeek . CMP Media, LLC. Archived from the original on 2007-11-25 . Retrieved 2007-11-25 .
  • Clarke, Gavin (September 29, 2005). “Peru’s parliament approves pro-open source bill” . The Register . Retrieved 2015-06-27 .
  • ElBoghdady, Dina; Tsukayama, Hayley (September 29, 2011). “Facebook tracking prompt calls for FTC investigation” . The Washington Post . Retrieved 2015-06-27 .
  • Feller, Joseph (ed.) (2005). Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software . MIT Press . ISBN  978-0262062466 .
  • Fisher, Franklin M .; McKie, James W .; Mancke, Richard B. (1983). IBM and the US Data Processing Industry: An Economic History . Praeger. ISBN  0-03-063059-2 .
  • Gunter, Joel (May 10, 2013). “International Space Station to boldly go with Linux over Windows” . The Telegraph . Retrieved 2015-06-27 .
  • Hatlestad, Luc (August 9, 2005). “LinuxWorld Showcases Open-Source Growth, Expansion” . InformationWeek . CMP Media, LLC. Archived from the original on 2007-12-02 . Retrieved 2007-11-25 .
  • Holwerda, Thom (March 26, 2011). “Apple Ditches SAMBA in Favor of Homegrown Replacement” . OS News . Retrieved 2015-06-22 .
  • Jones, Pamela (October 5, 2012). “Oracle and Google File Appeals” . Groklaw . Retrieved 2015-06-22 .
  • Miller, KW; Voas, J .; Costello, T. (2010). “Free and open source software”. IT Professional . 12 (6): 14-16. Doi : 10.1109 / MITP.2010.147 .
  • Nelson, Russell (December 13, 2009). “Open Source, MySQL, and Trademarks” . . Open Source Initiative . Retrieved 2015-06-22 .
  • Niccolai, James (June 20, 2012). “Oracle agrees to ‘zero’ damages in Google lawsuit, eyes appeal” . Computerworld . Retrieved 2015-06-22 .
  • Paul, Ryan (March 11, 2009). “French police: we saved millions of euros by adopting Ubuntu” . Ars Technica . Retrieved 2015-06-27 .
  • Perens, Bruce (1999). “The Open Source Definition” . Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution . O’Reilly Media. ISBN  1-56592-582-3 .
  • Samson, Ted (March 17, 2011). “Non-Oracle MySQL fork deemed ready for prime time” . InfoWorld . Retrieved 2015-06-22 .
  • Stallman, Richard (nd). “Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software” . . Free Software Foundation . Retrieved 2015-06-27 .
  • Thomson, Iain (September 16, 2011). “Oracle offers commercial extensions to MySQL” . The Register . Retrieved 2015-06-22 .
  • Vaughan-Nichols, Steven J. (October 29, 2009). “Obama Open Source into the White House” . PCWorld . Retrieved 2015-06-27 .
  • Vaughan-Nichols, Steven (January 8, 2011). “No GPL Apps for Apple’s App Store” . ZDNet . Retrieved 2015-06-27 .
  • Weber, Steve (2009). The Success of Open Source. Harvard University Press. p. 4. ISBN 9780674044999.
  • William, Sam (2002). Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman’s Crusade for Free Software. O’Reilly Media. ISBN 978-0596002879.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *