free and open-source software

{{Further|Alternative terms for free software}}

"Free and open-source software" (FOSS) is an umbrella term for software that is considered free software and/or open-source software. The precise definition of the terms "free software" and "open-source software" applies them to any software distributed under terms that allow users to use, modify, and redistribute said software in any manner they see fit, without requiring that they pay the author(s) of the software a royalty or fee for engaging in the listed activities.{{sfn|Feller|2005|p=xvii}}

Although there is an almost complete overlap between free-software licenses and open-source-software licenses, there is a strong philosophical disagreement between the advocates of these two positions. The terminology of FOSS was created to be a neutral on these philosophical disagreements between the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and Open Source Initiative (OSI) and have a single unified term that could refer to both concepts, although Richard Stallman argues that it fails to be neutral unlike the similar term; "Free/Libre and Open Source Software" (FLOSS).{{Cite web |last=Stallman |first=Richard |title=FLOSS and FOSS |url=https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180916040800/https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html |archive-date=2018-09-16 |access-date=2018-09-15 |website=www.gnu.org |language=en}}

{{main|Free software}}

Richard Stallman's The Free Software Definition, adopted by the FSF, defines free software as a matter of liberty, not price,{{Cite web |date=20 September 2011 |title=GNU |url=https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131014132149/https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html |archive-date=14 October 2013 |access-date=23 October 2011}}{{Cite journal |last=Maracke |first=Catharina |date=2019-02-25 |title=Free and Open Source Software and FRAND-based patent licenses: How to mediate between Standard Essential Patent and Free and Open Source Software |journal=The Journal of World Intellectual Property |language=en |volume=22 |issue=3–4 |pages=78–102 |doi=10.1111/jwip.12114 |issn=1422-2213 |s2cid=159111696 |doi-access=free}} and that which upholds the Four Essential Freedoms. The earliest known publication of this definition of his free software definition was in the February 1986 edition{{Cite web |title=GNU's Bulletin, Volume 1 Number 1, page 8 |url=https://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull1.txt |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150623180723/https://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull1.txt |archive-date=2015-06-23 |access-date=2015-06-20 |publisher=GNU}} of the FSF's now-discontinued GNU's Bulletin publication. The canonical source for the document is in the philosophy section of the GNU Project website. {{as of|August 2017}}, it is published in 40 languages.{{Cite web |title=The Free Software Definition – Translations of this page |url=https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#translations |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131014132149/https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#translations |archive-date=2013-10-14 |access-date=2014-04-18 |publisher=GNU}}

To meet the definition of "free software", the FSF requires the software's licensing respect the civil liberties / human rights of what the FSF calls the software user's "Four Essential Freedoms".{{Cite web |last=Free Software Foundation |date=27 December 2016 |title=What is free software? The Free Software Definition |url=https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131014132149/https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html |archive-date=14 October 2013 |access-date=15 September 2018 |website=The GNU Project -- GNU}}

• The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
• The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
• The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this, you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

{{main|Open-source software}}

The Open Source Definition is used by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) to determine whether a software license qualifies for the organization's insignia for open-source software. The definition was based on the Debian Free Software Guidelines, written and adapted primarily by Bruce Perens.{{Cite web |date=1999-03-29 |title=The Open Source Definition by Bruce Perens |url=https://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/perens.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140915025222/https://oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/perens.html |archive-date=2014-09-15 |access-date=2016-01-20}}, Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution, January 1999, {{ISBN|1-56592-582-3}}{{Cite web |date=7 July 2006 |title=The Open Source Definition |url=https://opensource.org/docs/osd |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131015144021/https://opensource.org/docs/osd |archive-date=2013-10-15 |access-date=2015-06-20}}, The Open Source Definition according to the Open Source Initiative Perens did not base his writing on the Four Essential Freedoms of free software from the Free Software Foundation, which were only later available on the web.{{Cite web |date=16 February 2009 |title=Slashdot.org |url=https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1129863&cid=26875815 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130717074714/https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1129863&cid=26875815 |archive-date=17 July 2013 |access-date=23 October 2011 |website=News.slashdot.org}} 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.{{Cite web |title=It's Time to Talk About Free Software Again |url=https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/02/msg01641.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140716055445/https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/02/msg01641.html |archive-date=2014-07-16 |access-date=2015-02-18}} In the following 2000s, he spoke about open source again.{{Cite web |date=1998-02-09 |title=Bruce Perens - State of Open Source Message: A New Decade For Open Source |url=https://perens.com/works/articles/State8Feb2008.html |url-status=deviated |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131104135143/https://perens.com/works/articles/State8Feb2008.html |archive-date=2013-11-04 |access-date=2009-07-15 |publisher=Perens.com}}{{Cite web |last=Barr |first=Joe |date=January 13, 2003 |title=Meet the Perens |url=https://akashsingh.ulitzer.com/node/32606 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131106193215/https://akashsingh.ulitzer.com/node/32606 |archive-date=November 6, 2013 |access-date=February 18, 2017 |publisher=LinuxWorld Magazine}}

{{Main|History of free and open-source software}}In the early decades of computing, particularly from the 1950s through the 1970s, software development was largely collaborative. Programs were commonly shared in source code form among academics, researchers, and corporate developers. Most companies at the time made their revenue from hardware sales, and software—including source code—was distributed freely alongside it, often as public-domain software.{{Cite web |last=Shea |first=Tom |date=1983-06-23 |title=Free software - Free software is a junkyard of software spare parts |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yy8EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA31}}{{Cite journal |last=Corbly |first=James Edward |date=2014-09-25 |title=The Free Software Alternative |journal=Information Technology and Libraries |volume=33 |issue=3 |pages=65 |doi=10.6017/ital.v33i3.5105}}

By the late 1960s and 1970s, a distinct software industry began to emerge. Companies started selling software as a separate product, leading to the use of restrictive licenses and technical measures—such as distributing only binary executables—to limit user access and control. This shift was driven by growing competition and the U.S. government's antitrust scrutiny of bundled software, exemplified by the 1969 antitrust case United States v. IBM.{{sfn|Fisher|McKie|Mancke|1983}}

A key turning point came in 1980 when U.S. copyright law was formally extended to cover computer software.[https://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/PL96-517.pdf Computer Software 1980 Copyright Act]{{Cite web |title=Copyright Basics |url=https://www.lib.purdue.edu/uco/CopyrightBasics/basics.html}} This enabled companies like IBM to further enforce closed-source distribution models. In 1983, IBM introduced its "object code only" policy, ceasing the distribution of source code for its system software.[https://books.google.com/books?id=hSBrPSYgjI4C&pg=PP55 Object code only: is IBM playing fair?]

In response to the growing restrictions on software, Richard Stallman launched the GNU Project in 1983 at MIT. His goal was to develop a complete Free software operating system and restore user freedom. The Free Software Foundation (FSF) was established in 1985 to support this mission. Stallman's GNU Manifesto and the Four Essential Freedoms outlined the movement's ethical stance, emphasizing user control over software.

The release of the Linux kernel by Linus Torvalds in 1991, and its relicense under the GNU General Public License (GPL) in 1992, marked a major step toward a fully Free operating system.{{Cite web |title=Release notes for Linux kernel 0.12 |url=https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/Historic/old-versions/RELNOTES-0.12}} Other Free software projects like FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD also gained traction following the resolution of the USL v. BSDi lawsuit in 1993.

In 1997, Eric Raymond’s essay *The Cathedral and the Bazaar* explored the development model of Free software, influencing Netscape’s decision in 1998 to release the source code for its browser suite. This code base became Mozilla Firefox and Thunderbird.

To broaden business adoption, a group of developers including Raymond, Bruce Perens, Tim O’Reilly, and Linus Torvalds rebranded the Free software movement as “Open Source.” The Open Source Initiative (OSI) was founded in 1998 to promote this new term and emphasize collaborative development benefits over ideology.{{Cite web |date=19 September 2006 |title=History of the OSI |url=https://opensource.org/history}}

Despite initial resistance—such as Microsoft's 2001 claim that "Open-source is an intellectual property destroyer"—FOSS eventually gained widespread acceptance in the corporate world. Companies like Red Hat proved that commercial success and Free software principles could coexist.{{sfn|Charny|2001}}{{Cite web |date=31 December 2016 |title=Issues when embracing FOSS |url=https://sourcecodecontrol.co/foss/}}{{sfn|Miller|Voas|Costello|2010|pages=14–16}}

{{See also|Linux adoption|Free software#Adoption|Open-source software#Adoption}}

{{See also|Vendor lock-in}}

Users of FOSS benefit from the Four Essential Freedoms to make unrestricted use of, and to study, copy, modify, and redistribute such software with or without modification. If they would like to change the functionality of software they can bring about changes 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 or request such changes to be made via updates to the original software.{{Cite book |last=Kirk |first=St Amant |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jVq9AQAAQBAJ&pg=PA372 |title=Handbook of Research on Open Source Software: Technological, Economic, and Social Perspectives: Technological, Economic, and Social Perspectives |date=2007 |publisher=Idea Group Inc (IGI) |isbn=9781591408925 |language=en |access-date=4 July 2017}}{{Cite book |last=Jacquart |first=Rene |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KDX0BwAAQBAJ&pg=PA700 |title=Building the Information Society: IFIP 18th World Computer Congress Topical Sessions 22–27 August 2004 Toulouse, France |date=2008 |publisher=Springer |isbn=9781402081576 |language=en |access-date=4 July 2017}}{{Cite book |last=Lopez-Tarruella |first=Aurelio |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lDs0MLAsO8MC&pg=PA263 |title=Google and the Law: Empirical Approaches to Legal Aspects of Knowledge-Economy Business Models |date=2012 |publisher=Springer Science & Business Media |isbn=9789067048453 |language=en |access-date=4 July 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191230144635/https://books.google.com/books?id=lDs0MLAsO8MC&pg=PA263 |archive-date=30 December 2019 |url-status=live}}{{Cite web |title=What is free software? |url=https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231115065058/https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html |archive-date=15 November 2023 |access-date=4 July 2017 |website=www.gnu.org |language=en}}

{{See also|Open-source software security|Surveillance capitalism|Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present)|Software update system}}

Manufacturers of proprietary, closed-source software are sometimes pressured to building in backdoors or other covert, undesired features into their software.{{Cite web |title=Microsoft Back Doors |url=https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.en.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191205010542/https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.en.html |archive-date=5 December 2019 |access-date=4 July 2017 |website=www.gnu.org |language=en}}{{Cite web |title=Microsoft Accidentally Leaks Key to Windows Backdoor - Schneier on Security |url=https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/08/microsoft_accid.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170825142643/https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/08/microsoft_accid.html |archive-date=25 August 2017 |access-date=4 July 2017 |website=www.schneier.com|date=15 August 2016 }}{{Cite web |last=Thomson |first=Iain |title=Snowden leak: Microsoft added Outlook.com backdoor for Feds |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/11/snowden_leak_shows_microsoft_added_outlookencryption_backdoor_for_feds/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170825104553/https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/11/snowden_leak_shows_microsoft_added_outlookencryption_backdoor_for_feds/ |archive-date=25 August 2017 |access-date=4 July 2017 |website=The Register}}{{Cite book |last1=Strandburg |first1=Katherine J. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-ZgEVDt30zIC&pg=PA323 |title=Privacy and Technologies of Identity: A Cross-Disciplinary Conversation |last2=Raicu |first2=Daniela Stan |date=2005 |publisher=Springer Science & Business Media |isbn=9780387260501 |language=en |access-date=4 July 2017}} Instead of having to trust software vendors, users of FOSS can inspect and verify the source code themselves and can put trust on a community of volunteers and users. As proprietary code is typically hidden from public view, only the vendors themselves and hackers may be aware of any vulnerabilities in them while FOSS involves as many people as possible for exposing bugs quickly.{{Cite web |date=8 October 2013 |title=Open source software is more secure than you think |url=https://www.scmagazine.com/open-source-software-is-more-secure-than-you-think/article/541874/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170825102354/https://www.scmagazine.com/open-source-software-is-more-secure-than-you-think/article/541874/ |archive-date=25 August 2017 |access-date=12 July 2017 |publisher=SC Media US |language=en}}

FOSS is often free of charge although donations are often encouraged. This also allows users to better test and compare software.

{{See also|#Bugs and missing features}}

FOSS allows for better collaboration among various parties and individuals with the goal of developing the most efficient software for its users or use-cases while proprietary software is typically meant to generate profits. Furthermore, in many cases more organizations and individuals contribute to such projects than to proprietary software. It has been shown that technical superiority is typically the primary reason why companies choose open source software.

{{See also|Common good|Public participation|Proactive cyber defence#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. However, this does not guarantee a high level of participation. Having a grouping of full-time professionals behind a commercial product can in some cases be superior to FOSS.{{Cite magazine |date=2010-11-05 |title=10 Reasons Open Source Is Good for Business |url=https://www.pcworld.com/article/209891/10_reasons_open_source_is_good_for_business.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170622034140/https://www.pcworld.com/article/209891/10_reasons_open_source_is_good_for_business.html |archive-date=22 June 2017 |access-date=4 July 2017 |magazine=PCWorld |language=en}}{{Cite web |title=Is Open Source Software More Secure? |url=https://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/csep590/05au/whitepaper_turnin/oss(10).pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170724002906/https://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/csep590/05au/whitepaper_turnin/oss(10).pdf |archive-date=24 July 2017 |access-date=4 July 2017}}

Furthermore, publicized source code might make it easier for hackers to find vulnerabilities in it and write exploits. This however assumes that such malicious hackers are more effective than white hat hackers which responsibly disclose or help fix the vulnerabilities, that no code leaks or exfiltrations occur and that reverse engineering of proprietary code is a hindrance of significance for malicious hackers.

{{Further|Software incompatibility|System requirements}}

Sometimes, 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 {{endash}} for instance as they wish customers to run only their own proprietary software or as they might benefit from partnerships.{{Cite book |last=Fogel |first=Karl |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0vbr7xvvzjgC&pg=PA245 |title=Producing Open Source Software: How to Run a Successful Free Software Project |date=2005 |publisher=O'Reilly Media, Inc |isbn=9780596552992 |language=en |access-date=4 July 2017}}{{Cite book |last=Sery |first=Paul G. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IpkXTUqriTsC&pg=PA111 |title=Ubuntu Linux For Dummies |date=2007 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |isbn=9780470125052 |language=en |access-date=4 July 2017}}{{Cite web |title=Linux Today - KERNEL-DEV: UDI and Free Software by Richard Stallman |url=https://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/1998100500205OP |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170825105704/https://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/1998100500205OP |archive-date=25 August 2017 |access-date=4 July 2017 |website=www.linuxtoday.com}}{{Cite news |last=Vaughan-Nichols |first=Steven J. |title=Microsoft tries to block Linux off Windows 8 PCs |url=https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-tries-to-block-linux-off-windows-8-pcs/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170714023028/https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-tries-to-block-linux-off-windows-8-pcs/ |archive-date=14 July 2017 |access-date=12 July 2017 |work=ZDNet |language=en}}{{Cite web |last=Kingsley-Hughes |first=Adrian |title=Lenovo reportedly blocking Linux on Windows 10 Signature Edition PCs (updated) |url=https://www.zdnet.com/article/lenovo-reportedly-blocking-linux-on-windows-10-signature-edition-pcs/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170714023050/https://www.zdnet.com/article/lenovo-reportedly-blocking-linux-on-windows-10-signature-edition-pcs/ |archive-date=14 July 2017 |access-date=12 July 2017 |website=ZDNet |language=en}}{{Cite web |title=Linux Today - How Microsoft Changes the Prices at OEMs to Block GNU/Linux Sales |url=https://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2009041200535NWMDMS |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170825105708/https://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2009041200535NWMDMS |archive-date=25 August 2017 |access-date=12 July 2017 |website=www.linuxtoday.com}}{{Cite web |title=Microsoft 'killed Dell Linux' – States |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/03/19/microsoft_killed_dell_linux_states/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170717220530/https://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/03/19/microsoft_killed_dell_linux_states/ |archive-date=17 July 2017 |access-date=12 July 2017 |website=The Register}}

{{See also|#Quality, collaboration and efficiency}}

While FOSS can be superior to proprietary equivalents in terms of software features and stability, in many cases it has more unfixed bugs and missing features when compared to similar commercial software.{{Cite web |last=Hill |first=Benjamin Mako |title=When Free Software Isn't (Practically) Superior |url=https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.en.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170713084233/https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.en.html |archive-date=13 July 2017 |access-date=11 July 2017}}{{Additional citation needed|date=July 2017}} This varies per case, and usually depends on the level of interest in a particular project. However, unlike close-sourced software, improvements can be made by anyone who has the motivation, time and skill to do so.{{Cite news |date=4 November 2016 |title=Too Big to Fail Open-Source Software Needs Hacker Help |url=https://observer.com/2016/11/open-source-too-big-to-fail/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170722140750/https://observer.com/2016/11/open-source-too-big-to-fail/ |archive-date=22 July 2017 |access-date=12 July 2017 |work=Observer}}{{Additional citation needed|date=July 2017}}

A common obstacle in FOSS development is the lack of access to some common official standards, due to costly royalties or required non-disclosure agreements (e.g., for the DVD-Video format).DVD FLLC (2009) [https://www.dvdfllc.co.jp/license/l_howto.html How To Obtain DVD Format/Logo License (2005–2009)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100318053639/https://www.dvdfllc.co.jp/license/l_howto.html |date=2010-03-18}}

There is often less certainty of FOSS projects gaining the required resources and participation for continued development than commercial software backed by companies.{{Cite book |last=Arthur |first=Tatnall |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=D3dJO-O5PewC&pg=PA685 |title=Encyclopedia of Portal Technologies and Applications |date=2007 |publisher=Idea Group Inc (IGI) |isbn=9781591409908 |language=en |access-date=11 July 2017}}{{Additional citation needed|date=July 2017}} However, companies also often abolish projects for being unprofitable, yet large companies may rely on, and hence co-develop, open source software. On the other hand, if the vendor of proprietary software ceases development, there are no alternatives; whereas with FOSS, any user who needs it still has the right, and the source-code, to continue to develop it themself, or pay a 3rd party to do so.

As the FOSS operating system distributions of Linux has a lower market share of end users there are also fewer applications available.{{Cite book |last1=Baldauf |first1=Kenneth |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=VAa-AouAHxoC&pg=PA147 |title=Succeeding with Technology |last2=Stair |first2=Ralph |date=2008 |publisher=Cengage Learning |isbn=978-1423925293 |language=en |access-date=12 July 2017}}{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PdpDFv5Gu5YC&pg=PT24 |title=Mastering Information Technology for CXC CSEC CAPE |publisher=Dennis Adonis |language=en |access-date=12 July 2017}}

=== Adoption by governments ===

{{Main|Adoption of free and open-source software by public institutions}}

{{See also|Sovereignty|National security|Computer emergency response team|Global public good}}

{{quote box|width=25%|quote="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. So if we needed to patch, adjust, or adapt, we could."|source=Official statement of the United Space Alliance, which manages the computer systems for the International Space Station (ISS), regarding why they chose to switch from Windows to Linux on the ISS.{{sfn|Gunter|2013}}{{sfn|Bridgewater|2013}} }}

In 2017, the European Commission stated that "EU institutions should become open source software users themselves, even more than they already are" and listed open source software as one of the nine key drivers of innovation, together with big data, mobility, cloud computing and the internet of things.{{Cite book |last=Directorate General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology |author-link=Directorate General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology |url=https://bookshop.europa.eu/en/the-economic-and-social-impact-of-software-services-on-competitiveness-and-innovation-pbKK0417206/ |title=The economic and social impact of software & services on competitiveness and innovation |year=2017 |isbn=978-92-79-66177-8 |access-date=2017-03-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170506153548/https://bookshop.europa.eu/en/the-economic-and-social-impact-of-software-services-on-competitiveness-and-innovation-pbKK0417206/ |archive-date=2017-05-06 |url-status=live}}

In 2020, the European Commission adopted its Open Source Strategy 2020-2023,{{Cite web |title=Open source software strategy |url=https://ec.europa.eu/info/departments/informatics/open-source-software-strategy_en |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221024124801/https://ec.europa.eu/info/departments/informatics/open-source-software-strategy_en |archive-date=2022-10-24 |access-date=2022-10-24 |website=European Commission - European Commission |language=en}} including encouraging sharing and reuse of software and publishing Commission's source code as key objectives. Among concrete actions there is also to set up an Open Source Programme Office in 2020{{Cite web |title=EC Open Source Programme Office {{!}} Joinup |url=https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/ec-ospo |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221024124803/https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/ec-ospo |archive-date=2022-10-24 |access-date=2022-10-24 |website=joinup.ec.europa.eu |language=en}} and in 2022 it launched its own FOSS repository https://code.europa.eu/.{{Cite web |last=Riordan |first=Ciarán O. |date=2022-09-19 |title=EC's code.europa.eu launches {{!}} Joinup |url=https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/open-source-observatory-osor/news/ecs-codeeuropaeu-launches |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221024124804/https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/open-source-observatory-osor/news/ecs-codeeuropaeu-launches |archive-date=2022-10-24 |access-date=2022-10-24 |website=joinup.ec.europa.eu |language=en}}

In 2021, the Commission Decision on the open source licensing and reuse of Commission software (2021/C 495 I/01){{Cite web |date=2021-12-08 |title=COMMISSION DECISION of 8 December 2021 on the open source licensing and reuse of Commission software (2021/C 495 I/01) |url=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32021D1209(01) |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221024124803/https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32021D1209(01) |archive-date=2022-10-24 |access-date=2022-10-24 |website=Official Journal of the European Union}} was adopted, under which, as a general principle, the European Commission may release software under EUPL or another FOSS license, if more appropriate. There are exceptions though.

In May 2022,{{Cite web |last=GAUKEMA |first=Laurens |date=2022-05-13 |title=Official expert recommendations for a new Interoperability Policy {{!}} Joinup |url=https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/interoperable-europe/news/official-expert-recommendations-new-interoperability-policy |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221024124804/https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/interoperable-europe/news/official-expert-recommendations-new-interoperability-policy |archive-date=2022-10-24 |access-date=2022-10-24 |website=joinup.ec.europa.eu |language=en}} the Expert group on the Interoperability of European Public Services came published 27 recommendations to strengthen the interoperability of public administrations across the EU. These recommendations are to be taken into account later in the same year in Commission's proposal of the "Interoperable Europe Act".

==Production==

{{See also|Open-source software development}}

Open-source software development (OSSD) is the process by which open-source software is developed. The software's source code is publicly available to be used, modified, and enhanced.{{Cite web |title=The Ultimate Guide to Open-Source Software Development by LicenseSpring |url=https://licensespring.com/blog/guide/open-source-software |access-date=2025-04-10 |website=LicenseSpring |language=en}} Notable examples of open-source software products are Mozilla Firefox, Android, and VLC media player.{{Cite web |date=2021-07-29 |title=What Is Open Source Software? {{!}} IBM |url=https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/open-source |access-date=2025-04-10 |website=www.ibm.com |language=en}} The development process is typically different from traditional methods such as Waterfall. Instead favoring early releases and community involvement. Agile development strategies are most often employed OSSD, with are characterized by their iterative and incremental frameworks.{{Cite web |title=When Agile and Open Source Meet {{!}} Aristek Systems |url=https://aristeksystems.com/blog/when-agile-and-open-source-meet/#:~:text=Most%20open-source%20projects%20will%20be%20hosted%20on,it%20easy%20for%20users%20to%20establish%20an |access-date=2025-04-10 |website=aristeksystems.com |language=en}} Open-source software developers will typically use methods such as E-mail, Wikis, web forums, and instant messaging services for communication, as individuals are not typically working in close proximity to one another.{{Cite web |last=Staff |first=Linux com Editorial |date=2020-11-24 |title=Communication by example: Which methods do high-performing open source communities use? |url=https://www.linux.com/news/communication-by-example-which-methods-do-high-performing-open-source-communities-use/ |access-date=2025-04-10 |website=Linux.com |language=en-US}} Version control systems such as Git are utilized to make code collaboration easier.

==Issues and incidents==

The GNU General Public License (GPL) is one of the most widely used copyleft licenses in the free and open-source software (FOSS) community and was created by the Free Software Foundation (FSF). Version 2 (GPLv2), published in 1991, played a central role in protecting the freedom of software to be run, studied, modified, and shared by users.{{Cite web |title=GNU General Public License v2.0 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation |url=https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250409211710/https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html |archive-date=2025-04-09 |access-date=2025-04-15 |website=www.gnu.org |language=en}} However, as technology and legal landscapes evolved, particularly with the rise of Digital Rights Management (DRM) and software patents, some developers and legal experts argued that GPLv2 did not adequately protect user freedoms in newer contexts.{{Cite web |date=2025-04-14 |title=A Quick Guide to GPLv3 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation |url=https://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html |access-date=2025-04-14 |website=www.gnu.org}} This led to the development of GPLv3, which sought to address these concerns.{{Cite web |title=Why Upgrade to GPLv3 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation |url=https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.en.html |access-date=2025-04-15 |website=www.gnu.org}}

While copyright is the primary legal mechanism that FOSS authors use to ensure license 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 its GNU General Public License (GNU GPLv3) in 2007 that explicitly addressed the DMCA and patent rights.

One of the key issues GPLv3 aimed to address was a practice known as Tivoization, named after the company TiVo, which used GPL-covered software but implemented hardware restrictions that prevented users from running modified versions of the software. This was seen by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) as a direct violation of software freedom, prompting GPLv3 to include language explicitly forbidding such restrictions{{Cite web |title=FSF releases the GNU General Public License, version 3 — Free Software Foundation — Working together for free software |url=https://www.fsf.org/news/gplv3_launched |access-date=2025-04-15 |website=www.fsf.org}}. Additionally, GPLv3 introduced clauses to protect users against aggressive enforcement of software patents and reinforced the idea that users should retain control over the software they use.

After the development of the GNU GPLv3 in 2007, the FSF (as the copyright holder of many pieces of the GNU system) updated many{{citation needed|date=November 2012}} 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,{{Cite web |last=Mark |date=2008-05-08 |title=The Curse of Open Source License Proliferation |url=https://socializedsoftware.com/2008/05/08/the-curse-of-open-source-license-proliferation/ |url-status=deviated |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151208112000/https://socializedsoftware.com/2008/05/08/the-curse-of-open-source-license-proliferation/ |archive-date=2015-12-08 |access-date=2015-11-30 |publisher=socializedsoftware.com |quote=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.}} several projects decided against upgrading to GPLv3. For instance the Linux kernel,{{Cite web |last=Torvalds |first=Linus |title=COPYING |url=https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/tree/COPYING |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151217084047/https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/tree/COPYING |archive-date=17 December 2015 |access-date=13 August 2013 |publisher=kernel.org |quote=Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.}}{{Cite web |last=Kerner |first=Sean Michael |date=2008-01-08 |title=Torvalds Still Keen On GPLv2 |url=https://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3720371/Torvalds+Still+Keen+On+GPLv2.htm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150212130610/https://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3720371/Torvalds+Still+Keen+On+GPLv2.htm |archive-date=2015-02-12 |access-date=2015-02-12 |publisher=internetnews.com |quote="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 Linux has always been about, which is more of a technical superiority instead of a -- this religious belief in freedom," Torvalds told Zemlin. "So, the GPL Version 3 reflects the FSF's goals and the GPL Version 2 pretty closely matches what I think a license should do and so right now, Version 2 is where the kernel is."}} the BusyBox{{Cite web |last=corbet |date=2006-10-01 |title=Busy busy busybox |url=https://lwn.net/Articles/202106/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160107184000/https://lwn.net/Articles/202106/ |archive-date=2016-01-07 |access-date=2015-11-21 |publisher=lwn.net |quote=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}}{{Cite web |last=Landley |first=Rob |date=2006-09-09 |title=Re: Move GPLv2 vs v3 fun... |url=https://lwn.net/Articles/202110/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160107184000/https://lwn.net/Articles/202110/ |archive-date=2016-01-07 |access-date=2015-11-21 |publisher=lwn.net |quote=Don't 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 actual downsides. 1) Useless: We're never dropping GPLv2.}} project, AdvFS,{{Cite web |title=HP Press Release: HP Contributes Source Code to Open Source Community to Advance Adoption of Linux |url=https://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2008/080623a.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111227233230/https://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2008/080623a.html |archive-date=2011-12-27 |access-date=2016-01-14 |website=www.hp.com}} Blender,{{Cite web |last=Prokoudine |first=Alexandre |date=26 January 2012 |title=What's up with DWG adoption in free software? |url=https://librearts.org/2012/01/whats-up-with-dwg-adoption-in-free-software/ |access-date=2025-03-09 |publisher=librearts.org |quote=[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."}} and the VLC media player decided against adopting the GPLv3.{{Cite web |last=Denis-Courmont |first=Rémi |title=VLC media player to remain under GNU GPL version 2 |url=https://www.videolan.org/press/2007-1.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151122014336/https://www.videolan.org/press/2007-1.html |archive-date=2015-11-22 |access-date=2015-11-21 |publisher=videolan.org |quote=In 2001, VLC was released under the OSI-approved GNU General Public version 2, with the commonly-offered option to use "any later version" thereof (though there was not any 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 videolan.org, debated the possibility of updating the licensing terms for future version of the VLC media player and other hosted projects, to version 3 of the GPL. [...] There is strong concern that these new additional requirements might not match the industrial and economic reality of our time, especially in the market of consumer electronics. It is our belief that changing our licensing terms to GPL version 3 would currently not be in the best interest of our community as a whole. Consequently, we plan to keep distributing future versions of VLC media player under the terms of the GPL version 2.}}

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{{sfn|Brockmeier|2010}} but is under a permissive license.{{Cite web |title=LLVM Developer Policy |url=https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#license |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121113204817/https://www.llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#license |archive-date=November 13, 2012 |access-date=November 19, 2012 |publisher=LLVM}} LWN speculated that Apple was motivated partly by a desire to avoid GPLv3.{{sfn|Brockmeier|2010}} The Samba project also switched to GPLv3, so Apple replaced Samba in their software suite by a closed-source, proprietary software alternative.{{sfn|Holwerda|2011}}

The controversy with GPLv3 mirrored a more general philosophical split in the open source community: whether people should hold licenses that aggressively defend user freedoms (as with copyleft) or take a more permissive, collaborative yet ambiguous approach. Supporters applauded GPLv3 for fortifying protections against restrictions imposed by hardware and patent threats{{Cite web |title=FSF releases the GNU General Public License, version 3 — Free Software Foundation — Working together for free software |url=https://www.fsf.org/news/gplv3_launched |access-date=2025-04-15 |website=www.fsf.org}}, while critics felt it created legal and ideological barriers that complicated its development and made it less appealing to adopt.{{Cite web |title=Kernel developers' position on GPLv3 [LWN.net] |url=https://lwn.net/Articles/200422/ |access-date=2025-04-15 |website=lwn.net}} The fallout helped to raise the acceptance of permissive licenses like the MIT and Apache licenses, especially by commercial software developers.{{Cite web |last=O'Grady |first=Stephen |date=2017-01-13 |title=The State of Open Source Licensing |url=https://redmonk.com/sogrady/2017/01/13/the-state-of-open-source-licensing/ |access-date=2025-04-15 |website=tecosystems |language=en-US}}

{{See also|Issue tracking system}}

Leemhuis criticizes the prioritization of skilled developers who − instead of fixing issues in already popular open-source applications and desktop environments − create new, mostly redundant software to gain fame and fortune.{{Cite web |last=Leemhuis |first=Thorsten |date=7 July 2017 |title=Kommentar: Linux scheitert an Egozentrik |url=https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Kommentar-Linux-scheitert-an-Egozentrik-3766433.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170707113645/https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Kommentar-Linux-scheitert-an-Egozentrik-3766433.html |archive-date=7 July 2017 |access-date=12 July 2017 |publisher=heise online |language=de-DE}}

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

Mergers have affected major open-source software. Sun Microsystems (Sun) acquired MySQL AB, owner of the popular open-source MySQL database, in 2008.{{Cite web |title=Sun to Acquire MySQL |url=https://mysql.com/news-and-events/sun-to-acquire-mysql.html |url-status=deviated |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110718044718/https://mysql.com/news-and-events/sun-to-acquire-mysql.html |archive-date=2011-07-18 |access-date=2008-01-16 |publisher=MySQL AB}}

Oracle in turn purchased 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 have raised concerns in the FOSS community.{{sfn|Thomson|2011}} 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.{{sfn|Samson|2011}} All of these have distinct names; they are distinct projects and cannot use the trademarked name MySQL.{{sfn|Nelson|2009}}

{{main|Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.}}

In August 2010, Oracle sued Google, claiming that its use of Java in Android infringed on Oracle's copyrights and patents. In May 2012, the trial judge determined that Google did not infringe on Oracle's patents and 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.{{sfn|Niccolai|2012}} Oracle appealed to the Federal Circuit, and Google filed a cross-appeal on the literal copying claim.{{sfn|Jones|2012}}

{{Main|Open source}}

{{See also|Commons-based peer production|Free content|Sharing economy|Post-scarcity economy}}

By defying ownership regulations in the construction and use of information—a key area of contemporary growth—the Free/Open Source Software (FOSS) movement counters neoliberalism and privatization in general.{{Cite book |last=Berry |first=David M. |url=https://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/46112/ |title=Copy, Rip Burn: The Politics of Copyleft and Open Source |date=2008 |publisher=Pluto Press |isbn=978-0745324142 |edition=1 |location=London |pages=272 |access-date=2021-03-25 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210709182146/https://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/46112/ |archive-date=2021-07-09 |url-status=live}}{{Cite journal |last=Georgopoulou |first=Panayiota |date=2009 |title=The free/open source software movement Resistance or change? |url=https://www.redalyc.org/html/742/74212712006/ |url-status=live |journal=Civitas - Revista de Ciências Sociais |volume=9 |issue=1 |doi=10.15448/1984-7289.2009.1.5569 |issn=1519-6089 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170713180917/https://www.redalyc.org/html/742/74212712006/ |archive-date=13 July 2017 |access-date=11 July 2017 |doi-access=free}}

By realizing the historical potential of an "economy of abundance" for the new digital world, FOSS may lay down a plan for political resistance or show the way towards a potential transformation of capitalism.

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.{{sfn|Benkler|2003}}

{{Portal|Free and open-source software}}

{{Div col|colwidth=20em}}

• Contributing guidelines
• FLOSS Manuals
• FLOSS Weekly
• Free software movement
• Free-software license
• Free and open-source graphics device driver
• List of free and open-source software packages
• List of formerly proprietary software
• Open-source license
• Openwashing
• Outline of free software

{{div col end}}

{{Notelist}}

{{reflist}}

{{refbegin|30em}}

• {{Cite news |last=Alawadhi |first=Neha |date=March 30, 2015 |title=Government announces policy on open source software |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Govt-announces-policy-on-open-source-software/articleshow/46745926.cms |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160110223738/https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Govt-announces-policy-on-open-source-software/articleshow/46745926.cms |archive-date=2016-01-10 |access-date=2015-06-27 |work=The Times of India}}
• {{Cite journal |last=Benkler |first=Yochai |date=April 2003 |title=Freedom in the Commons: Towards a Political Economy of Information |url=https://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?52+Duke+L.+J.+1245+pdf |url-status=deviated |journal=Duke Law Journal |volume=52 |issue=6 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110306041013/https://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?52+Duke+L.+J.+1245+pdf |archive-date=2011-03-06 |access-date=2014-01-08}}
• {{Cite news |last=Bridgewater |first=Adrian |date=May 13, 2013 |title=International Space Station adopts Debian Linux, drops Windows & Red Hat into airlock |url=https://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/open-source-insider/2013/05/international-space-station-adopts-debian-linux-drop-windows-red-hat-into-airlock.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150624055241/https://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/open-source-insider/2013/05/international-space-station-adopts-debian-linux-drop-windows-red-hat-into-airlock.html |archive-date=2015-06-24 |access-date=2015-06-27 |work=Computer Weekly}}
• {{Cite news |last=Brockmeier |first=Joe |date=September 15, 2010 |title=Apple's Selective Contributions to GCC |url=https://lwn.net/Articles/405417/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200101034547/https://lwn.net/Articles/405417/ |archive-date=2020-01-01 |access-date=2015-06-22 |work=LWN.net}}
• {{Cite book |last1=Casson |first1=Tony |title=Standards Edge: Unifier or Divider? |last2=Ryan |first2=Patrick S. |date=May 1, 2006 |publisher=Sheridan Books |isbn=978-0974864853 |editor-last=Bolin |editor-first=Sherrie |page=87 |chapter=Open Standards, Open Source Adoption in the Public Sector, and Their Relationship to Microsoft's Market Dominance |ssrn=1656616}}
• {{Cite news |last=Charny |first=B. |date=May 3, 2001 |title=Microsoft Raps Open-Source Approach |url=https://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-257001.html%26tag%3Dmncol%3Btxt |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120729064947/https://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-257001.html%26tag%3Dmncol%3Btxt |archive-date=July 29, 2012 |access-date=February 15, 2022 |work=CNET News}}
• {{Cite news |last=Claburn |first=Thomas |date=January 17, 2007 |title=Study Finds Open Source Benefits Business |url=https://www.informationweek.com/windows/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196901596&subSection=Open+Source |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071202233128/https://www.informationweek.com/windows/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196901596&subSection=Open+Source |archive-date=2007-12-02 |access-date=2007-11-25 |work=InformationWeek |publisher=CMP Media, LLC}}
• {{Cite news |last=Clarke |first=Gavin |date=September 29, 2005 |title=Peru's parliament approves pro-open source bill |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/29/peru_goes_open_source/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111109204858/https://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/29/peru_goes_open_source/ |archive-date=2011-11-09 |access-date=2015-06-27 |work=The Register}}
• {{Cite news |last1=ElBoghdady |first1=Dina |last2=Tsukayama |first2=Hayley |date=September 29, 2011 |title=Facebook tracking prompts calls for FTC investigation |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/facebook-tracking-prompts-calls-for-ftc-investigation/2011/09/29/gIQAVdsP8K_story.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150630173926/https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/facebook-tracking-prompts-calls-for-ftc-investigation/2011/09/29/gIQAVdsP8K_story.html |archive-date=2015-06-30 |access-date=2015-06-27 |newspaper=The Washington Post}}
• {{Cite book |title=Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software |publisher=MIT Press |year=2005 |isbn=978-0262062466 |editor-last=Feller |editor-first=Joseph}}
• {{Cite book |last1=Fisher |first1=Franklin M. |title=IBM and the U.S. Data Processing Industry: An Economic History |last2=McKie |first2=James W. |last3=Mancke |first3=Richard B. |publisher=Praeger |year=1983 |isbn=978-0-03-063059-0}}
• {{Cite news |last=Gunter |first=Joel |date=May 10, 2013 |title=International Space Station to boldly go with Linux over Windows |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10049444/International-Space-Station-to-boldly-go-with-Linux-over-Windows.html |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220111/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10049444/International-Space-Station-to-boldly-go-with-Linux-over-Windows.html |archive-date=2022-01-11 |access-date=2015-06-27 |work=The Telegraph}}{{cbignore}}
• {{Cite news |last=Hatlestad |first=Luc |date=August 9, 2005 |title=LinuxWorld Showcases Open-Source Growth, Expansion |url=https://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=168600351 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071202233015/https://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=168600351 |archive-date=2007-12-02 |access-date=2007-11-25 |work=InformationWeek |publisher=CMP Media, LLC}}
• {{Cite news |last=Holwerda |first=Thom |date=March 26, 2011 |title=Apple Ditches SAMBA in Favour of Homegrown Replacement |url=https://www.osnews.com/story/24572/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120114142006/https://www.osnews.com/story/24572/ |archive-date=2012-01-14 |access-date=2015-06-22 |work=OS News}}
• {{Cite web |last=Jones |first=Pamela |date=October 5, 2012 |title=Oracle and Google File Appeals |url=https://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20121005082638280 |url-status=deviated |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121201130542/https://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20121005082638280 |archive-date=2012-12-01 |access-date=2015-06-22 |website=Groklaw}}
• {{Cite journal |last1=Miller |first1=K. W. |last2=Voas |first2=J. |last3=Costello |first3=T. |year=2010 |title=Free and open source software |journal=IT Professional |volume=12 |pages=14–16 |doi=10.1109/MITP.2010.147 |s2cid=24463978 |number=6}}
• {{Cite web |last=Nelson |first=Russell |date=December 13, 2009 |title=Open Source, MySQL, and trademarks |url=https://www.opensource.org/node/496 |url-status=deviated |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111021095017/https://opensource.org/node/496 |archive-date=2011-10-21 |access-date=2015-06-22 |website=Opensource.org |publisher=Open Source Initiative}}
• {{Cite news |last=Niccolai |first=James |date=June 20, 2012 |title=Oracle agrees to 'zero' damages in Google lawsuit, eyes appeal |url=https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9228298/Oracle_agrees_to_zero_damages_in_Google_lawsuit_eyes_appeal |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121117001109/https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9228298/Oracle_agrees_to_zero_damages_in_Google_lawsuit_eyes_appeal |archive-date=2012-11-17 |access-date=2015-06-22 |work=Computerworld}}
• {{Cite news |last=Paul |first=Ryan |date=March 11, 2009 |title=French police: we saved millions of euros by adopting Ubuntu |url=https://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/03/french-police-saves-millions-of-euros-by-adopting-ubuntu.ars |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090313044240/https://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/03/french-police-saves-millions-of-euros-by-adopting-ubuntu.ars |archive-date=2009-03-13 |access-date=2015-06-27 |work=Ars Technica}}
• {{Cite book |last=Perens |first=Bruce |url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_9781565925823 |title=Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution |publisher=O'Reilly Media |year=1999 |isbn=978-1-56592-582-3 |chapter=The Open Source Definition |chapter-url=https://www.oreilly.com/openbook/opensources/book/perens.html}}
• {{Cite news |last=Samson |first=Ted |date=March 17, 2011 |title=Non-Oracle MySQL fork deemed ready for prime time |url=https://www.infoworld.com/article/2623894/linux/non-oracle-mysql-fork-deemed-ready-for-prime-time.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150623025023/https://www.infoworld.com/article/2623894/linux/non-oracle-mysql-fork-deemed-ready-for-prime-time.html |archive-date=2015-06-23 |access-date=2015-06-22 |work=InfoWorld}}
• {{Cite web |last=Stallman |first=Richard |date=n.d. |title=Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software |url=https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110804231811/https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html |archive-date=2011-08-04 |access-date=2015-06-27 |website=GNU |publisher=Free Software Foundation}}
• {{Cite news |last=Thomson |first=Iain |date=September 16, 2011 |title=Oracle offers commercial extensions to MySQL |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/16/oracle_commercial_extensions_mysql/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191026035401/https://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/16/oracle_commercial_extensions_mysql/ |archive-date=2019-10-26 |access-date=2015-06-22 |work=The Register}}
• {{Cite news |last=Vaughan-Nichols |first=Steven J. |date=October 29, 2009 |title=Obama Invites Open Source into the White House |url=https://www.pcworld.com/article/174746/obama_invites_open_source_into_the_white_house.html |url-status=deviated |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091031024127/https://www.pcworld.com/article/174746/obama_invites_open_source_into_the_white_house.html |archive-date=2009-10-31 |access-date=2015-06-27 |work=PCWorld}}
• {{Cite news |last=Vaughan-Nichols |first=Steven |date=January 8, 2011 |title=No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store |url=https://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/no-gpl-apps-for-apples-app-store/8046 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141115072514/https://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/no-gpl-apps-for-apples-app-store/8046 |archive-date=2014-11-15 |access-date=2015-06-27 |work=ZDNet}}
• {{Cite book |last=Weber |first=Steve |title=The Success of Open Source |publisher=Harvard University Press |year=2009 |isbn=9780674044999 |page=4}}
• {{Cite book |last=William |first=Sam |url=https://archive.org/details/freeasinfreedomr00will |title=Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman's Crusade for Free Software |publisher=O'Reilly Media |year=2002 |isbn=978-0596002879}}

{{refend}}

{{refbegin}}

• {{Cite web |last=Barr |first=Joe |year=1998 |title=Why "Free Software" is better than "Open Source" |url=https://www.gnu.org.ua/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html |url-status=deviated |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070703091340/https://www.gnu.org.ua/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html |archive-date=2007-07-03 |access-date=2007-11-25 |publisher=Free Software Foundation}}
• {{Cite book |last=Berry |first=David |url=https://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/46112/ |title=Copy, Rip, Burn: The Politics of Copyleft and Open Source |date=2008 |publisher=Pluto Press |isbn=978-0745324142 |edition=1 |location=London |pages=272 |access-date=2021-03-25 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210709182146/https://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/46112/ |archive-date=2021-07-09 |url-status=live}}
• {{Cite web |last=Salus |first=Peter H. |date=March 28, 2005 |title=A History of Free and Open Source |url=https://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050327184603969 |url-status=deviated |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924023823/https://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050327184603969 |archive-date=2015-09-24 |access-date=2015-06-22 |website=Groklaw}}
• {{Cite journal |last=Vetter |first=G. |date=2009 |title=Commercial Free and Open Source Software: Knowledge Production, Hybrid Appropriability, and Patents |url=https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol77/iss5/4 |url-status=live |journal=Fordham Law Review |volume=77 |pages=2087–2141 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120424180212/https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol77/iss5/4/ |archive-date=2012-04-24 |access-date=2011-10-23 |number=5}}
• {{Cite web |last=Wheeler |first=David A. |date=May 8, 2014 |title=Why Open Source Software / Free Software (OSS/FS, FLOSS, or FOSS)? Look at the Numbers! |url=https://dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150621173700/https://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html |archive-date=2015-06-21 |access-date=2015-06-22 |website=DWheeler.com}}

{{refend}}

{{Wikibooks|FLOSS Concept Booklet}}

{{wikibooks|FOSS A General Introduction}}

{{FOSS}}

{{Open navbox}}

*

Category:Software licensing