Difference between revisions of "free, open-source software"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→News: 3/16 economist article) |
m (→News: note about inaccuracy in economist article) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
* {{wikipedia|FOSS}} | * {{wikipedia|FOSS}} | ||
==News== | ==News== | ||
| − | * '''2006-03-16''' [http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5624944 Open, but not as usual] ([http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/17/2125224 slashdot]): how "open source" ideas interact with the world of business | + | * '''2006-03-16''' [http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5624944 Open, but not as usual] ([http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/17/2125224 slashdot]): how "open source" ideas interact with the world of business. At least one fact in this article is incorrect: "Wikipedia changed its rules so that only registered users can edit existing entries." This is untrue (I was still able to edit a random article after logging out --[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] 06:45, 28 April 2006 (EDT)). |
* '''2006-03-09''' [http://news.com.com/GPL+3.0+A+bonfire+of+the+vanities/2010-7344_3-6047707.html GPL 3.0: A bonfire of the vanities?] ([http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot?m=4152 slashdot]) by Jonathan Zuck of the [[wikipedia:Association for Competitive Technology|Association for Competitive Technology]] (a more-or-less anti-open-source group) | * '''2006-03-09''' [http://news.com.com/GPL+3.0+A+bonfire+of+the+vanities/2010-7344_3-6047707.html GPL 3.0: A bonfire of the vanities?] ([http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot?m=4152 slashdot]) by Jonathan Zuck of the [[wikipedia:Association for Competitive Technology|Association for Competitive Technology]] (a more-or-less anti-open-source group) | ||
* '''2006-02-23''' [http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9075-2051196,00.html Free software? You can't just give it away] ([http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/23/1330220 slashdot]): apparently the freely-redistributable nature of FOSS causes confusion in some quarters | * '''2006-02-23''' [http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9075-2051196,00.html Free software? You can't just give it away] ([http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/23/1330220 slashdot]): apparently the freely-redistributable nature of FOSS causes confusion in some quarters | ||
Revision as of 10:45, 28 April 2006
|
This page is a seed article. You can help HTYP water it: make a request to expand a given page and/or donate to help give us more writing-hours!
|
FOSS: abbreviation for Free, Open-Source Software. Indicates software which is not only free (as in either "costing nothing to obtain legally" or as in "free for additional copying and modifying", depending on who you talk to) but also open source (meaning that the source code is available for modification and re-distribution).
Links
- Open Source Versus: comparisons of open-source and proprietary software
- Essay by Tom Chance about the philosophical differences between "free", "open source", and "proprietary" software development
Reference
News
- 2006-03-16 Open, but not as usual (slashdot): how "open source" ideas interact with the world of business. At least one fact in this article is incorrect: "Wikipedia changed its rules so that only registered users can edit existing entries." This is untrue (I was still able to edit a random article after logging out --Woozle 06:45, 28 April 2006 (EDT)).
- 2006-03-09 GPL 3.0: A bonfire of the vanities? (slashdot) by Jonathan Zuck of the Association for Competitive Technology (a more-or-less anti-open-source group)
- 2006-02-23 Free software? You can't just give it away (slashdot): apparently the freely-redistributable nature of FOSS causes confusion in some quarters