Talk:Open source

The phrase "open-source" is an adjective--a compound modifier--and therefore should be hyphenated. This phrase is not and cannot be a noun that stands on its own--not by this definition. See Oxford, Merriam-Webster, and other established dictionaries. (Oxford's contains a typo--they state that it is an adjective and hyphenate it in the sample sentence, but the term is lacking a hyphen--I brought that to their attention.) I cannot edit the title of this article but it too should be "Open-source". Even when the phrase is not followed by a noun, the noun is either ellipted (and understood), or is stated earlier in the sentence. It always stands for something like "open-source software", "open-source code", etc. For example: "Nowadays, more and more software products are open-source." ^{[1] [2]}Sukoch (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

That very may well be, but wikipedia follows the common usage, even if the common usage might technically be incorrect. - MrOllie (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@JasonCarswell: Please stop adding the opinionated sections from this edit back into the article. An article about open source is not a good place to discuss war profiteering. The frustrating thing is that there is some relevant information in there that I haven't managed to integrate (albeit coloured by the political issues you're most knowledgeable on); I would like to discuss ways of including this information in the article proper whilst remaining on-topic and conforming to Wikipedia's standards. wizzwizz4 (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wizzwizz4: So fix it, don't remove it. If you just keep resetting then it's not improving. I didn't reset it back to my original when I initiated and we created this new BCA (broad concept article) a year and a half ago. I improved it since then. You're not helping if you're not helping. I was not discussing war, but profiteering has one of the most critical impacts on the corruption of science and the obfuscation leading to scientism. Just because YOU "haven't managed to integrate" it doesn't mean someone else can't do it. I insist you roll back your edit and we can discuss a better way forward, breaking down every word and/or asking for assistance if needs be. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 06:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@JasonCarswell: I didn't just reset it. But seeing as I'm not the only person who's (repeatedly) reverted the edits adding that paragraph, this version's probably a better consensus to build from. Did you really have to write

as well as the political lobbyists (a soft term for legalized bribery)

and

in a world where corporate corruption and status quo war profiteering are business as usual.

? I won't revert the article to a state where this text is in it; it's not relevant to the article. What specific, relevant information have I removed that should be in the article? I'm happy to return that, or you can. wizzwizz4 (talk) 08:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Wizzwizz4: Thanks for engaging. IMO the political bribery is absolutely fundamentally at the corrupting core of all our privatized scientific institutions thus necessitating a blind faith in scientism. I'm open to phrasing it differently, such as "political lobbyists, who some/many say/acknowledge is legal bribery,..." citations needed of course. I don't weasel words like "some say", and I prefer calling it a "soft term" because that's what propaganda spin does to make the medicine go down.

Regarding: "in a world where corporate corruption and status quo war profiteering are business as usual." I hardly think this is controversial, now nor through history, especially in the USA where half its budget is spend on its military, weapons manufacturing, and global "aid" (surpassing all other countries combined) - though I can see how some might object to "business as usual" when something like "commonplace" might suffice. Corporate corruption is VERY commonplace. In fact it's expected that all corporations externalize as much as possible, (as much as they can get away with - and more), to earn maximum profits for their shareholders. Watch The Corporation (2003 film) for the basics. This understanding that the world is violent and corrupt is at the fundamental core of objecting to potentially dangerous privatized science and scientism for profit in favour of authentic open science benefiting all. It's profoundly relevant to that part of the article. Try to change my mind. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@JasonCarswell: That's the trouble – Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, nor is it for your personal opinion. Whilst I disagree that they're as fundamental as that, I agree that some of the things you've outlined play some effect – nonetheless, they're not statements about open source and they're not likely to be citable. Political lobbyists being a legal form of bribery should go on the article about lobbying – and, in fact, the very second paragraph of that article goes into quite a bit of detail about the ethical concerns. Lobbying in the United States contains pretty much all you've tried to say about lobbying in this article already – note that the specific off-topic things you've brought up are mostly US issues, which is a small part of why I've removed them with such prejudice.

A couple of these things aren't all that controversial, but they're all incredibly tangential. Nearly everything can be linked back to the things I am knowledgeable and passionate about, some of which are extremely important, but they're not actually related topics and I don't go around editing references to them into unrelated Wikipedia articles. Likewise, open source ≠ corporate corruption. An article about open source is not an article about contemporary US political issues. Open source exists in France, and Japan, and Ethiopia, which don't have “status quo war profiteering” (a phrase which, to be honest, I'm not actually certain of the meaning of). Just because these things are what leads you to care about open source, doesn't mean they are integral to the understanding of it. They're not. A sentence about lobbying with a link would be sufficient (though I'm not sure what that sentence would say, exactly). wizzwizz4 (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm now starting to realize where this terrible writing is coming from. Hyperbole and words to the effect of "it has been said" don't belong in an encyclopedia article.𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 02:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The fact that open source is used practically everywhere today really needs to be mentioned in the article's introduction: I have done just that with embedded devices added today; earlier had been other aspects with a link to the overall article on OS market share. I also noted the area in which it is not used as much (which is of course the PC market / Windows operating system). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Altanner1991 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I have removed it because it is essentially all Linux rather than open source in general. Altanner1991 (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  Y Merge completed Klbrain (talk) 11:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

This article is in serious need of review. The pictures are cited in German. Lots to do here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.219.79.223 (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

It would be good to receive comments to this discussion: link --Avoinlähde (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn't read the article in full, but it really stands out that the leading section refers just to open source software while the rest of the article goes on to cover open source hardware and several other things. I don't know what the best course of action is. Maybe the article should be split. But, if not, the leading section should give a more general definition. —Gennaro Prota^•Talk 13:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed - I was about to highlight that the opening section "Open source is source code that is made freely available for possible modification and redistribution." is far too Software specific. Perhaps Open source is intellectual property (often source code) that is made freely available for possible modification and redistribution? Cronky (talk) 13:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

According to various sources, the Tankmen are now open source characters. 104.34.175.116 (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_source&diff=prev&oldid=1241170073 appears to be an attempt to re-add the reference that was reverted in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_source&diff=prev&oldid=1231686674 after having been originally added in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_source&diff=prev&oldid=1231616770 . I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia policy to figure this out and I am just familiar enough to know that simply performing a revert myself might be a violation of the policy on edit warring. Please advise. 20kdc (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

WRT the opening: "Open source is source code...": that's what I thought this article was about ... until I read the sections towards the bottom that list lots of examples of open source things that are not software; electronics (hardware), food & beverage, medicine.... And I discovered open-source software. It seems this article should be more of a disambiguation page and OSS for software. Stevebroshar (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

At one point the history section both claims a long history of the use of the term, going way back and also claims that it was coined in 1990. It is not possible that both are true at the same time and since the 1990 claim is much later than the rest of the history section, this clearly must be the wrong claims. I propose the 1990 claim be rewritten to clarify that this claim is a incorrect myth. ~2026-58245-3 (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

The article states the concept has a long history, and that the term was coined in 1990s. Mindmatrix 19:09, 28 January 2026 (UTC)