Difference between revisions of "free, open-source software"

from HTYP, the free directory anyone can edit if they can prove to me that they're not a spambot
Jump to: navigation, 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

Computing: FOSS

This is a seed article. You can help HTYP grow by watering it.

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