Menu
Home Explore People Places Arts History Plants & Animals Science Life & Culture Technology
On this page
Free and open-source software
Software whose source code is available and which is permissively licensed

Free and open-source software (FOSS) is software licensed to allow anyone to use, modify, and distribute it freely, encompassing both free software and open-source software. Its principles stem from The Free Software Definition and The Open Source Definition, requiring publicly available source code. FOSS contrasts with restrictive proprietary software. Originating from the public domain software era, FOSS powers many Linux distributions, BSD variants, servers, desktops, and smartphones. Supported by the free software movement and open-source software movement, FOSS promotes security, privacy, stability, and user freedom through a diverse network of contributors and organizations.

Related Image Collections Add Image
Profiles
1 Image
We don't have any YouTube videos related to Free and open-source software yet.
We don't have any PDF documents related to Free and open-source software yet.
We don't have any Books related to Free and open-source software yet.

Overview

Further information: Alternative terms for free software

"Free and open-source software" (FOSS) is an umbrella term for software that is considered free software and open-source software.8 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.9

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).10

Free software

Main article: Free software

Richard Stallman's The Free Software Definition, adopted by the FSF, defines free software as a matter of liberty, not price,1112 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 edition13 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.14

Four essential freedoms of free software

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".15

  • 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.16

Open-source software

Main article: 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.1718 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.19 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.20 In the following 2000s, he spoke about open source again.2122

History

Main article: 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.2324

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.25

A key turning point came in 1980 when U.S. copyright law was formally extended to cover computer software.2627 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.28

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.29

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.30 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.31

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.323334

Usage

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

Benefits over proprietary software

Personal control, customizability and freedom

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.3536373839

Privacy and security

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

Manufacturers of proprietary, closed-source software are sometimes pressured to building in backdoors or other covert, undesired features into their software.40414243 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.44 As proprietary code is typically hidden from public view, only the vendors themselves and hackers may be aware of any vulnerabilities in them45 while FOSS involves as many people as possible for exposing bugs quickly.4647

Low costs or no costs

FOSS is often free of charge although donations are often encouraged. This also allows users to better test and compare software.48

Quality, collaboration and efficiency

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.49 It has been shown that technical superiority is typically the primary reason why companies choose open source software.50

Drawbacks compared to proprietary software

Security and user-support

See also: Common good, Public participation, and 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.515253

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.54

Hardware and software compatibility

Further information: Software incompatibility and 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 – for instance as they wish customers to run only their own proprietary software or as they might benefit from partnerships.55565758596061

Bugs and missing features

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.62[additional citation(s) needed] 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.63[additional citation(s) needed]

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).64

Less guarantee of development

There is often less certainty of FOSS projects gaining the required resources and participation for continued development than commercial software backed by companies.65[additional citation(s) needed] However, companies also often abolish projects for being unprofitable, yet large companies may rely on, and hence co-develop, open source software.66 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.

Missing applications

As the FOSS operating system distributions of Linux has a lower market share of end users there are also fewer applications available.6768

Adoption by governments

Main article: Adoption of free and open-source software by public institutions

See also: Sovereignty, National security, Computer emergency response team, and Global public good

CountryDescription
ArgentinaThe government of Argentina launched the program Conectar Igualdad (Connect Equality), through ANSES and the Ministry of Education (Argentina) launched during the presidency of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, that gave kids on public schools free laptops to use for educative purposes. By default, it came with Huayra GNU/Linux, a free and open-source Linux operating system developed by the Argentinian technology ministry, based on Debian, using the MATE Desktop.
AustriaIn 2005, Vienna migrated from Microsoft Office 2000 to OpenOffice.org and from Microsoft Windows 2000 to Linux.6970
BrazilIn 2006, the Brazilian government has simultaneously encouraged the distribution of cheap computers running Linux throughout its poorer communities by subsidizing their purchase with tax breaks.71
CanadaIn 2017, the city of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, opened up most of its new internal software development efforts to reduce its own software costs, and increase collaboration with other municipalities looking to solve similar problems.72
EcuadorIn April 2008,73 Ecuador passed a similar law, Decree 1014, designed to migrate the public sector to Libre Software.74
FranceIn March 2009, the French Gendarmerie Nationale announced it will totally switch to Ubuntu by 2015. The Gendarmerie began its transition to open source software in 2005 when it replaced Microsoft Office with OpenOffice.org across the entire organization.75 In September 2012, the French Prime Minister laid down a set of action-oriented recommendations about using open-source in the French public administration.76 These recommendations are published in a document based on the works of an inter-ministerial group of experts.77 This document promotes some orientations like establishing an actual convergence on open-source stubs, activating a network of expertise about converging stubs, improving the support of open-source software, contributing to selected stubs, following the big communities, spreading alternatives to the main commercial solutions, tracing the use of open-source and its effects, developing the culture of use of the open-source licenses in the developments of public information systems. One of the aim of this experts groups is also to establish lists of recommended open-source software to use in the French public administration.78
GermanyIn 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.79 On November 13, 2017, The Register reported that Munich was planning to revert to Windows 10 by 2020.80 But in 2020, Munich decided to shift back from Microsoft to Linux again.81 In 2022 Germany launched82 Open CoDE, its own FOSS repository and forum.
IndiaThe Government of Kerala, India, announced its official support for free and open-source software in its State IT Policy of 2001,83[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 started the International Centre for Free and Open Source Software (ICFOSS).84 In March 2015 the Indian government announced a policy on adoption of FOSS.8586
ItalyThe Italian military is transitioning to LibreOffice and the OpenDocument Format (ODF). LibreItalia Association announced on September 15, 2015, that the Ministry of Defence would over the next year-and-a-half install this suite of office productivity tools on some 150,000 PC workstations, making it Europe's second-largest LibreOffice implementation.87 By June 23, 2016, 6,000 stations have been migrated.88 E-learning military platform.89[needs update]
JordanIn January 2010, the Government of Jordan announced a partnership with Ingres Corporation (now named Actian), an open-source database-management company based in the United States, to promote open-source software use, starting with university systems in Jordan.90
MalaysiaMalaysia launched the "Malaysian Public Sector Open Source Software Program", saving millions on proprietary software licenses until 2008.9192
PeruIn 2005, the Government of Peru voted to adopt open source across all its bodies.93 The 2002 response to Microsoft's critique is available online. In the preamble to the bill, the Peruvian government stressed that the choice was made to ensure that key pillars of democracy were safeguarded: "The basic principles which inspire the Bill are linked to the basic guarantees of a state of law."94
PortugalIn 2000, the Portuguese Vieira do Minho Municipality began switching to free and open-source software.95
RomaniaIOSSPL is a free and open source software used for public libraries in Romania.96
SpainIn 2017, The City of Barcelona started to migrate its computer systems away from the Windows platform . The City's strategy was first to replace all user applications with open-source alternatives, until the underlying Windows operating system is the only proprietary software remaining. In a final step, the operating system replaced with Linux.97
UgandaIn September 2014, the Uganda National Information Technology Authority (NITA-U) announced a call for feedback on an Open Source Strategy & Policy98 at a workshop in conjunction with the ICT Association of Uganda (ICTAU).
United StatesIn February 2009, the White House moved its website to Linux servers using Drupal for content management.99 In August 2016, the United States government announced a new federal source code policy which mandates that at least 20% of custom source code developed by or for any agency of the federal government be released as open-source software (OSS).100 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 schemas to help agencies implement this policy", the policy announcement stated. It also provides the "primary discoverability portal for custom-developed software intended both for Government-wide reuse and for release as OSS".101 As yet unspecified OSS licenses will be added to the code.102
VenezuelaIn 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, the transition was still under way.103104[needs update]

Adoption by supranational unions and international organizations

European Union

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.105

In 2020, the European Commission adopted its Open Source Strategy 2020-2023,106 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 2020107 and in 2022 it launched its own FOSS repository https://code.europa.eu/.108

In 2021, the Commission Decision on the open source licensing and reuse of Commission software (2021/C 495 I/01)109 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 2022,110 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.111 Notable examples of open-source software products are Mozilla Firefox, Android, and VLC media player.112 The development process is typically different from traditional methods such as Waterfall. Instead favoring early releases and community involvement.113 Agile development strategies are most often employed OSSD, with are characterized by their iterative and incremental frameworks.114 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.115 Version control systems such as Git are utilized to make code collaboration easier.116

Issues and incidents

GPLv3 controversy

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.117 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.118 This led to the development of GPLv3, which sought to address these concerns.119

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.120 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 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,121 several projects decided against upgrading to GPLv3. For instance the Linux kernel,122123 the BusyBox124125 project, AdvFS,126 Blender,127 and the VLC media player decided against adopting the GPLv3.128

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 compiler129 but is under a permissive license.130 LWN speculated that Apple was motivated partly by a desire to avoid GPLv3.131 The Samba project also switched to GPLv3, so Apple replaced Samba in their software suite by a closed-source, proprietary software alternative.132

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,133 while critics felt it created legal and ideological barriers that complicated its development and made it less appealing to adopt.134 The fallout helped to raise the acceptance of permissive licenses like the MIT and Apache licenses, especially by commercial software developers.135

Skewed prioritization, ineffectiveness and egoism of developers

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.136

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.137

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 2008.138

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.139 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.140 All of these have distinct names; they are distinct projects and cannot use the trademarked name MySQL.141

Legal cases

Oracle v. Google

Main article: 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.142 Oracle appealed to the Federal Circuit, and Google filed a cross-appeal on the literal copying claim.143

Economics

Main article: Open source

See also: Commons-based peer production, Free content, Sharing economy, and 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.144145

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.146

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.147

See also

  • Free and open-source software portal

Notes

Sources

Further reading

Wikibooks has a book on the topic of: FLOSS Concept Booklet Wikibooks has a book on the topic of: FOSS A General Introduction

References

  1. FOSS is an inclusive term that covers both free software and open-source software,[1] which despite describing similar development models, have differing cultures and philosophical backgrounds.[2] Free refers to the users' freedom to copy and re-use the software. The Free Software Foundation, an organization that advocates the free software model, suggests that to understand the concept, one should "think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer". (See "The Free Software Definition". GNU. Retrieved 4 February 2010.) Free software focuses on the fundamental freedoms it gives to users, whereas open source software focuses on the perceived strengths of its peer-to-peer development model.[3] /wiki/Free_software ↩

  2. Sources describing free and open-source software as an umbrella term encompassing both free software and open source software: [4][5][6][7][8] ↩

  3. Fortunato, Laura; Galassi, Mark (17 May 2021). "The case for free and open source software in research and scholarship". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A. 379 (2197). Royal Society: 7. doi:10.1098/rsta.2020.0079. PMID 33775148. /wiki/Laura_Fortunato_(academic) ↩

  4. Greenleaf, Graham; Lindsay, David (7 June 2018). "Voluntary Licensing Creating Public Rights". Public Rights: Copyright's Public Domains. Cambridge University Press. pp. 483, 485. doi:10.1017/9781316460214.017. ISBN 978-1-107-13406-5. Retrieved 15 December 2024. The two predominant strains of FOSS licences are those that comply with the Open Source Initiative's 'Open Source Definition', and those that comply with the Free Software Foundation's 'Free Software Definition' [...] The list of 'open source' licences kept by the OSI, and of 'free' software licences kept by the FSF, are together called FOSS (free and open-source software) licences. All FOSS licences, because they meet the requirements of either OSI or FSF, should also meet our criteria for neutral voluntary licences and thus software licensed under them is part of the public domain. 978-1-107-13406-5 ↩

  5. Fortunato, Laura; Galassi, Mark (17 May 2021). "The case for free and open source software in research and scholarship". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A. 379 (2197). Royal Society: 7. doi:10.1098/rsta.2020.0079. PMID 33775148. /wiki/Laura_Fortunato_(academic) ↩

  6. Hatlestad 2005. - 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. https://web.archive.org/web/20071202233015/https://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=168600351 ↩

  7. Claburn 2007. - Claburn, Thomas (January 17, 2007). "Study Finds Open Source Benefits Business". InformationWeek. CMP Media, LLC. Archived from the original on 2007-12-02. Retrieved 2007-11-25. https://www.informationweek.com/windows/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196901596&subSection=Open+Source ↩

  8. Sources describing free and open-source software as an umbrella term encompassing both free software and open source software: [4][5][6][7][8] ↩

  9. Feller 2005, p. xvii. - Feller, Joseph, ed. (2005). Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0262062466. ↩

  10. Stallman, Richard. "FLOSS and FOSS". www.gnu.org. Archived from the original on 2018-09-16. Retrieved 2018-09-15. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html ↩

  11. "GNU". 20 September 2011. Archived from the original on 14 October 2013. Retrieved 23 October 2011. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html ↩

  12. Maracke, Catharina (2019-02-25). "Free and Open Source Software and FRAND-based patent licenses: How to mediate between Standard Essential Patent and Free and Open Source Software". The Journal of World Intellectual Property. 22 (3–4): 78–102. doi:10.1111/jwip.12114. ISSN 1422-2213. S2CID 159111696. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fjwip.12114 ↩

  13. "GNU's Bulletin, Volume 1 Number 1, page 8". GNU. Archived from the original on 2015-06-23. Retrieved 2015-06-20. https://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull1.txt ↩

  14. "The Free Software Definition – Translations of this page". GNU. Archived from the original on 2013-10-14. Retrieved 2014-04-18. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#translations ↩

  15. Free Software Foundation (27 December 2016). "What is free software? The Free Software Definition". The GNU Project -- GNU. Archived from the original on 14 October 2013. Retrieved 15 September 2018. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html ↩

  16. Free Software Foundation (27 December 2016). "What is free software? The Free Software Definition". The GNU Project -- GNU. Archived from the original on 14 October 2013. Retrieved 15 September 2018. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html ↩

  17. "The Open Source Definition by Bruce Perens". 1999-03-29. Archived from the original on 2014-09-15. Retrieved 2016-01-20., Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution, January 1999, ISBN 1-56592-582-3 https://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/perens.html ↩

  18. "The Open Source Definition". 7 July 2006. Archived from the original on 2013-10-15. Retrieved 2015-06-20., The Open Source Definition according to the Open Source Initiative https://opensource.org/docs/osd ↩

  19. "Slashdot.org". News.slashdot.org. 16 February 2009. Archived from the original on 17 July 2013. Retrieved 23 October 2011. https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1129863&cid=26875815 ↩

  20. "It's Time to Talk About Free Software Again". Archived from the original on 2014-07-16. Retrieved 2015-02-18. https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/02/msg01641.html ↩

  21. "Bruce Perens - State of Open Source Message: A New Decade For Open Source". Perens.com. 1998-02-09. Archived from the original on 2013-11-04. Retrieved 2009-07-15. https://web.archive.org/web/20131104135143/https://perens.com/works/articles/State8Feb2008.html ↩

  22. Barr, Joe (January 13, 2003). "Meet the Perens". LinuxWorld Magazine. Archived from the original on November 6, 2013. Retrieved February 18, 2017. https://akashsingh.ulitzer.com/node/32606 ↩

  23. Shea, Tom (1983-06-23). "Free software - Free software is a junkyard of software spare parts". https://books.google.com/books?id=yy8EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA31 ↩

  24. Corbly, James Edward (2014-09-25). "The Free Software Alternative". Information Technology and Libraries. 33 (3): 65. doi:10.6017/ital.v33i3.5105. /wiki/Doi_(identifier) ↩

  25. Fisher, McKie & Mancke 1983. - Fisher, Franklin M.; McKie, James W.; Mancke, Richard B. (1983). IBM and the U.S. Data Processing Industry: An Economic History. Praeger. ISBN 978-0-03-063059-0. ↩

  26. Computer Software 1980 Copyright Act https://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/PL96-517.pdf ↩

  27. "Copyright Basics". https://www.lib.purdue.edu/uco/CopyrightBasics/basics.html ↩

  28. Object code only: is IBM playing fair? https://books.google.com/books?id=hSBrPSYgjI4C&pg=PP55 ↩

  29. Free Software Foundation (27 December 2016). "What is free software? The Free Software Definition". The GNU Project -- GNU. Archived from the original on 14 October 2013. Retrieved 15 September 2018. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html ↩

  30. "Release notes for Linux kernel 0.12". https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/Historic/old-versions/RELNOTES-0.12 ↩

  31. "History of the OSI". 19 September 2006. https://opensource.org/history ↩

  32. Charny 2001. - Charny, B. (May 3, 2001). "Microsoft Raps Open-Source Approach". CNET News. Archived from the original on July 29, 2012. Retrieved February 15, 2022. https://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-257001.html%26tag%3Dmncol%3Btxt ↩

  33. "Issues when embracing FOSS". 31 December 2016. https://sourcecodecontrol.co/foss/ ↩

  34. Miller, Voas & Costello 2010, pp. 14–16. - Miller, K. W.; Voas, J.; Costello, T. (2010). "Free and open source software". IT Professional. 12 (6): 14–16. doi:10.1109/MITP.2010.147. S2CID 24463978. https://doi.org/10.1109%2FMITP.2010.147 ↩

  35. Kirk, St Amant (2007). Handbook of Research on Open Source Software: Technological, Economic, and Social Perspectives: Technological, Economic, and Social Perspectives. Idea Group Inc (IGI). ISBN 9781591408925. Retrieved 4 July 2017. 9781591408925 ↩

  36. 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. 9781402081576 ↩

  37. Lopez-Tarruella, Aurelio (2012). Google and the Law: Empirical Approaches to Legal Aspects of Knowledge-Economy Business Models. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 9789067048453. Archived from the original on 30 December 2019. Retrieved 4 July 2017. 9789067048453 ↩

  38. "What is free software?". www.gnu.org. Archived from the original on 15 November 2023. Retrieved 4 July 2017. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html ↩

  39. "10 Reasons Open Source Is Good for Business". PCWorld. 2010-11-05. Archived from the original on 22 June 2017. Retrieved 4 July 2017. https://www.pcworld.com/article/209891/10_reasons_open_source_is_good_for_business.html ↩

  40. "Microsoft Back Doors". www.gnu.org. Archived from the original on 5 December 2019. Retrieved 4 July 2017. https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.en.html ↩

  41. "Microsoft Accidentally Leaks Key to Windows Backdoor - Schneier on Security". www.schneier.com. 15 August 2016. Archived from the original on 25 August 2017. Retrieved 4 July 2017. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/08/microsoft_accid.html ↩

  42. Thomson, Iain. "Snowden leak: Microsoft added Outlook.com backdoor for Feds". The Register. Archived from the original on 25 August 2017. Retrieved 4 July 2017. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/11/snowden_leak_shows_microsoft_added_outlookencryption_backdoor_for_feds/ ↩

  43. 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. 9780387260501 ↩

  44. "10 Reasons Open Source Is Good for Business". PCWorld. 2010-11-05. Archived from the original on 22 June 2017. Retrieved 4 July 2017. https://www.pcworld.com/article/209891/10_reasons_open_source_is_good_for_business.html ↩

  45. "10 Reasons Open Source Is Good for Business". PCWorld. 2010-11-05. Archived from the original on 22 June 2017. Retrieved 4 July 2017. https://www.pcworld.com/article/209891/10_reasons_open_source_is_good_for_business.html ↩

  46. "Is Open Source Software More Secure?" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 24 July 2017. Retrieved 4 July 2017. https://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/csep590/05au/whitepaper_turnin/oss(10).pdf ↩

  47. "Open source software is more secure than you think". SC Media US. 8 October 2013. Archived from the original on 25 August 2017. Retrieved 12 July 2017. https://www.scmagazine.com/open-source-software-is-more-secure-than-you-think/article/541874/ ↩

  48. "10 Reasons Open Source Is Good for Business". PCWorld. 2010-11-05. Archived from the original on 22 June 2017. Retrieved 4 July 2017. https://www.pcworld.com/article/209891/10_reasons_open_source_is_good_for_business.html ↩

  49. "10 Reasons Open Source Is Good for Business". PCWorld. 2010-11-05. Archived from the original on 22 June 2017. Retrieved 4 July 2017. https://www.pcworld.com/article/209891/10_reasons_open_source_is_good_for_business.html ↩

  50. "10 Reasons Open Source Is Good for Business". PCWorld. 2010-11-05. Archived from the original on 22 June 2017. Retrieved 4 July 2017. https://www.pcworld.com/article/209891/10_reasons_open_source_is_good_for_business.html ↩

  51. "10 Reasons Open Source Is Good for Business". PCWorld. 2010-11-05. Archived from the original on 22 June 2017. Retrieved 4 July 2017. https://www.pcworld.com/article/209891/10_reasons_open_source_is_good_for_business.html ↩

  52. "Is Open Source Software More Secure?" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 24 July 2017. Retrieved 4 July 2017. https://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/csep590/05au/whitepaper_turnin/oss(10).pdf ↩

  53. "Too Big to Fail Open-Source Software Needs Hacker Help". Observer. 4 November 2016. Archived from the original on 22 July 2017. Retrieved 12 July 2017. https://observer.com/2016/11/open-source-too-big-to-fail/ ↩

  54. "Is Open Source Software More Secure?" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 24 July 2017. Retrieved 4 July 2017. https://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/csep590/05au/whitepaper_turnin/oss(10).pdf ↩

  55. 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. 9780596552992 ↩

  56. Sery, Paul G. (2007). Ubuntu Linux For Dummies. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9780470125052. Retrieved 4 July 2017. 9780470125052 ↩

  57. "Linux Today - KERNEL-DEV: UDI and Free Software by Richard Stallman". www.linuxtoday.com. Archived from the original on 25 August 2017. Retrieved 4 July 2017. https://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/1998100500205OP ↩

  58. Vaughan-Nichols, Steven J. "Microsoft tries to block Linux off Windows 8 PCs". ZDNet. Archived from the original on 14 July 2017. Retrieved 12 July 2017. https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-tries-to-block-linux-off-windows-8-pcs/ ↩

  59. Kingsley-Hughes, Adrian. "Lenovo reportedly blocking Linux on Windows 10 Signature Edition PCs (updated)". ZDNet. Archived from the original on 14 July 2017. Retrieved 12 July 2017. https://www.zdnet.com/article/lenovo-reportedly-blocking-linux-on-windows-10-signature-edition-pcs/ ↩

  60. "Linux Today - How Microsoft Changes the Prices at OEMs to Block GNU/Linux Sales". www.linuxtoday.com. Archived from the original on 25 August 2017. Retrieved 12 July 2017. https://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2009041200535NWMDMS ↩

  61. "Microsoft 'killed Dell Linux' – States". The Register. Archived from the original on 17 July 2017. Retrieved 12 July 2017. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/03/19/microsoft_killed_dell_linux_states/ ↩

  62. Hill, Benjamin Mako. "When Free Software Isn't (Practically) Superior". Archived from the original on 13 July 2017. Retrieved 11 July 2017. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.en.html ↩

  63. "Too Big to Fail Open-Source Software Needs Hacker Help". Observer. 4 November 2016. Archived from the original on 22 July 2017. Retrieved 12 July 2017. https://observer.com/2016/11/open-source-too-big-to-fail/ ↩

  64. DVD FLLC (2009) How To Obtain DVD Format/Logo License (2005–2009) Archived 2010-03-18 at the Wayback Machine https://www.dvdfllc.co.jp/license/l_howto.html ↩

  65. Arthur, Tatnall (2007). Encyclopedia of Portal Technologies and Applications. Idea Group Inc (IGI). ISBN 9781591409908. Retrieved 11 July 2017. 9781591409908 ↩

  66. "Open source software is more secure than you think". SC Media US. 8 October 2013. Archived from the original on 25 August 2017. Retrieved 12 July 2017. https://www.scmagazine.com/open-source-software-is-more-secure-than-you-think/article/541874/ ↩

  67. Baldauf, Kenneth; Stair, Ralph (2008). Succeeding with Technology. Cengage Learning. ISBN 978-1423925293. Retrieved 12 July 2017. 978-1423925293 ↩

  68. Mastering Information Technology for CXC CSEC CAPE. Dennis Adonis. Retrieved 12 July 2017. https://books.google.com/books?id=PdpDFv5Gu5YC&pg=PT24 ↩

  69. Vienna to softly embrace Linux – ZDNet UK http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39185440,00.htm ↩

  70. "Open Source Software am Arbeitsplatz im Magistrat Wien". Archived from the original on 2007-06-09. Retrieved 2018-05-30. https://web.archive.org/web/20070609192244/http://www.wien.gv.at/ma14/oss.html ↩

  71. Casson & Ryan 2006. - 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 (ed.). Standards Edge: Unifier or Divider?. Sheridan Books. p. 87. ISBN 978-0974864853. SSRN 1656616. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1656616 ↩

  72. Algoma University "Advocating for Collaboration in Code" https://algomau.ca/news/alumni-profile-dan-gowans/ ↩

  73. "[News] Ecuador Ahead of the World with Democracy of Knowledge". Archived from the original on 2014-12-18. Retrieved 2022-02-15. https://web.archive.org/web/20141218165422/https://compgroups.net/comp.os.linux.advocacy/-news-ecuador-ahead-of-the-world-with/1773288 ↩

  74. (in Spanish) Estebanmendieta.com Archived 2014-06-28 at the Wayback Machine, Decree 1014 https://www.estebanmendieta.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/Decreto_1014_software_libre_Ecuador.pdf ↩

  75. Paul 2009. - Paul, Ryan (March 11, 2009). "French police: we saved millions of euros by adopting Ubuntu". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on 2009-03-13. Retrieved 2015-06-27. https://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/03/french-police-saves-millions-of-euros-by-adopting-ubuntu.ars ↩

  76. [1] Archived 2017-08-27 at the Wayback Machine PM Bulletin (Circular letter) #5608-SG of September 19th, 2012 https://references.modernisation.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/Circulaire%20n%C2%B0%205608-SG%20du%2019%20septembre%202012.pdf ↩

  77. [2] Archived 2018-09-10 at the Wayback Machine Use of the open-source software in the administration https://references.modernisation.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/Annexe%20circulaire%20n%C2%B0%205608-SG%20du%2019%20septembre%202012%20-%20PDF.pdf ↩

  78. [3] Archived 2017-08-27 at the Wayback Machine Interministerial base of open-source applications https://references.modernisation.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/SILL%202017%20-%20socle%20interminist%C3%A9riel%20logiciels%20libres_0.pdf ↩

  79. "Landeshauptstadt München - Aktuelle Zahlen" (in German). Muenchen.de. Archived from the original on 2014-08-27. Retrieved 2014-07-28. https://www.muenchen.de/rathaus/Stadtverwaltung/Direktorium/LiMux/Zahlen_Fakten/Projektstatus.html ↩

  80. "Munich council: To hell with Linux, we're going full Windows in 2020". Archived from the original on 2017-12-01. Retrieved 2017-12-04. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/11/13/munich_committee_says_all_windows_2020/ ↩

  81. "Linux not Windows: Why Munich is shifting back from Microsoft to open source – again". Archived from the original on 2021-04-09. Retrieved 2021-04-17. https://www.zdnet.com/article/linux-not-windows-why-munich-is-shifting-back-from-microsoft-to-open-source-again/ ↩

  82. Riordan, Ciarán O. (2022-09-20). "Germany launches opencode.de | Joinup". joinup.ec.europa.eu. Archived from the original on 2022-10-24. Retrieved 2022-10-24. https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/open-source-observatory-osor/news/germany-launches-opencodede ↩

  83. ""Role of Open or Free Software", Section 15, page 20, of the State IT Policy (2001) of the Government of Kerala, copy available at the UN Public Administration Network (UNPAN) site" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-11-03. Retrieved 2014-02-02. https://web.archive.org/web/20131103210627/https://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan002950.pdf ↩

  84. "Kerala IT | Welcome". www.keralait.org. Archived from the original on 2019-10-26. Retrieved 2019-09-18. https://www.keralait.org/blog/2011/02/25/chief-minister-inaugurates-icfoss-in-kerala/%7B%7Bdead+link%7Cdate=January+2017+%7Cbot=InternetArchiveBot+%7Cfix-attempted=yes+%7D%7D ↩

  85. Alawadhi 2015. - Alawadhi, Neha (March 30, 2015). "Government announces policy on open source software". The Times of India. Archived from the original on 2016-01-10. Retrieved 2015-06-27. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Govt-announces-policy-on-open-source-software/articleshow/46745926.cms ↩

  86. "Policy on Adoption of Open Source Software for Government of India" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2015-08-15. Retrieved 2022-09-14. https://meity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/policy_on_adoption_of_oss.pdf ↩

  87. "Italian military to switch to... | Joinup". joinup.ec.europa.eu. 15 September 2015. Archived from the original on 2019-09-21. Retrieved 2019-09-18. https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/open-source-observatory-osor/news/italian-military-switch ↩

  88. "Un anno di LibreDifesa". LibreItalia (in Italian). 23 June 2016. Archived from the original on 9 October 2017. Retrieved 10 May 2018. https://web.archive.org/web/20171009204003/https://www.libreitalia.it/un-anno-di-libredifesa/ ↩

  89. "Difel: LibreDifesa". el-stelmilit.difesa.it. Archived from the original on 2017-10-09. Retrieved 2017-10-09. https://web.archive.org/web/20171009194140/https://el-stelmilit.difesa.it/course/index.php?categoryid=55 ↩

  90. "Jordan Information Ministry signs deal on open source - Government - News & Features". Edge Middle East. 16 January 2010. Archived from the original on 2012-08-04. Retrieved 2012-04-23. https://www.itp.net/578825-jordan-information-ministry-signs-deal-on-open-source ↩

  91. "OSCC.org". Archived from the original on 2011-10-27. Retrieved 23 October 2011. https://www.oscc.org.my/ ↩

  92. "OSCC.org". Archived from the original on 2011-10-05. Retrieved 23 October 2011. https://web.archive.org/web/20111005081918/https://knowledge.oscc.org.my/newsletters/first-quarterly-e-newsletter-jan-2009 ↩

  93. Clarke 2005. - Clarke, Gavin (September 29, 2005). "Peru's parliament approves pro-open source bill". The Register. Archived from the original on 2011-11-09. Retrieved 2015-06-27. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/29/peru_goes_open_source/ ↩

  94. National Advisory Council on Innovation Open Software Working Group (July 2004). "Free/Libre & Open Source Software and Open Standards in South Africa" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 22 December 2014. Retrieved 31 May 2008. https://www.prodefinity.de/docs/floss_v2_6_9.pdf ↩

  95. "Vieira do Minho - citizens and administrators profit from open source". European Commission. 2013-05-31. Archived from the original on 2013-12-04. Retrieved 2013-11-15. https://web.archive.org/web/20131204081628/https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/elibrary/case/vieira-do-minho-citizens-and-administrators-profit-open-source ↩

  96. "IOSSPL". Archived from the original on 2010-07-02. Retrieved 2018-05-30. https://web.archive.org/web/20100702000027/http://www.iosspl.org/ ↩

  97. "El Ayuntamiento de Barcelona rompe con el 'software' de Microsoft". El Pais. 2017-01-12. Retrieved 2023-11-13. https://elpais.com/ccaa/2017/12/01/catalunya/1512145439_132556.html ↩

  98. "Open Source Strategy & Policy". Archived from the original on September 27, 2014. Retrieved February 15, 2022. https://web.archive.org/web/20140927113622/https://ictau.ug/call-for-feedback-on-the-open-source-strategy-policy/ ↩

  99. Vaughan-Nichols 2009. - Vaughan-Nichols, Steven J. (October 29, 2009). "Obama Invites Open Source into the White House". PCWorld. Archived from the original on 2009-10-31. Retrieved 2015-06-27. https://web.archive.org/web/20091031024127/https://www.pcworld.com/article/174746/obama_invites_open_source_into_the_white_house.html ↩

  100. Scott, Tony; Rung, Anne E (8 August 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, US: Office of Budget and Management, Executive Office of the President. Archived (PDF) from the original on 21 January 2017. Retrieved 2016-09-14. Also available as HTML at: sourcecode.cio.gov https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2016/m_16_21.pdf ↩

  101. Scott, Tony; Rung, Anne E (8 August 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, US: Office of Budget and Management, Executive Office of the President. Archived (PDF) from the original on 21 January 2017. Retrieved 2016-09-14. Also available as HTML at: sourcecode.cio.gov https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2016/m_16_21.pdf ↩

  102. New, William (22 August 2016). "New US Government Source Code Policy Could Provide Model For Europe". Intellectual Property Watch. Geneva, Switzerland. Archived from the original on 28 August 2016. Retrieved 2016-09-14. https://www.ip-watch.org/2016/08/22/new-us-government-source-code-policy-could-provide-model-for-europe/ ↩

  103. "Venezuela Open Source". Archived from the original on February 16, 2008. Retrieved February 15, 2022. https://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/12/venezuela_open_source.html ↩

  104. Chavez, Hugo F. (December 2004). "Publicado en la Gaceta oficial No 38.095 de fecha 28/ 12/ 2004". Archived from the original on 9 August 2011. Retrieved 23 October 2011. https://web.archive.org/web/20110809230610/https://www.tsj.gov.ve/gaceta/Diciembre/281204/281204-38095-08.html ↩

  105. Directorate General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology (2017). The economic and social impact of software & services on competitiveness and innovation. ISBN 978-92-79-66177-8. Archived from the original on 2017-05-06. Retrieved 2017-03-27. 978-92-79-66177-8 ↩

  106. "Open source software strategy". European Commission - European Commission. Archived from the original on 2022-10-24. Retrieved 2022-10-24. https://ec.europa.eu/info/departments/informatics/open-source-software-strategy_en ↩

  107. "EC Open Source Programme Office | Joinup". joinup.ec.europa.eu. Archived from the original on 2022-10-24. Retrieved 2022-10-24. https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/ec-ospo ↩

  108. Riordan, Ciarán O. (2022-09-19). "EC's code.europa.eu launches | Joinup". joinup.ec.europa.eu. Archived from the original on 2022-10-24. Retrieved 2022-10-24. https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/open-source-observatory-osor/news/ecs-codeeuropaeu-launches ↩

  109. "COMMISSION DECISION of 8 December 2021 on the open source licensing and reuse of Commission software (2021/C 495 I/01)". Official Journal of the European Union. 2021-12-08. Archived from the original on 2022-10-24. Retrieved 2022-10-24. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32021D1209(01) ↩

  110. GAUKEMA, Laurens (2022-05-13). "Official expert recommendations for a new Interoperability Policy | Joinup". joinup.ec.europa.eu. Archived from the original on 2022-10-24. Retrieved 2022-10-24. https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/interoperable-europe/news/official-expert-recommendations-new-interoperability-policy ↩

  111. "The Ultimate Guide to Open-Source Software Development by LicenseSpring". LicenseSpring. Retrieved 2025-04-10. https://licensespring.com/blog/guide/open-source-software ↩

  112. "What Is Open Source Software? | IBM". www.ibm.com. 2021-07-29. Retrieved 2025-04-10. https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/open-source ↩

  113. "What Is Open Source Software? | IBM". www.ibm.com. 2021-07-29. Retrieved 2025-04-10. https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/open-source ↩

  114. "When Agile and Open Source Meet | Aristek Systems". aristeksystems.com. Retrieved 2025-04-10. 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 ↩

  115. Staff, Linux com Editorial (2020-11-24). "Communication by example: Which methods do high-performing open source communities use?". Linux.com. Retrieved 2025-04-10. https://www.linux.com/news/communication-by-example-which-methods-do-high-performing-open-source-communities-use/ ↩

  116. "What Is Open Source Software? | IBM". www.ibm.com. 2021-07-29. Retrieved 2025-04-10. https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/open-source ↩

  117. "GNU General Public License v2.0 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation". www.gnu.org. Archived from the original on 2025-04-09. Retrieved 2025-04-15. http://web.archive.org/web/20250409211710/https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html ↩

  118. "A Quick Guide to GPLv3 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation". www.gnu.org. 2025-04-14. Retrieved 2025-04-14. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html ↩

  119. "Why Upgrade to GPLv3 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation". www.gnu.org. Retrieved 2025-04-15. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.en.html ↩

  120. "FSF releases the GNU General Public License, version 3 — Free Software Foundation — Working together for free software". www.fsf.org. Retrieved 2025-04-15. https://www.fsf.org/news/gplv3_launched ↩

  121. Mark (2008-05-08). "The Curse of Open Source License Proliferation". socializedsoftware.com. Archived from the original on 2015-12-08. 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. https://web.archive.org/web/20151208112000/https://socializedsoftware.com/2008/05/08/the-curse-of-open-source-license-proliferation/ ↩

  122. Torvalds, Linus. "COPYING". kernel.org. Archived from the original on 17 December 2015. Retrieved 13 August 2013. 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. https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/tree/COPYING ↩

  123. Kerner, Sean Michael (2008-01-08). "Torvalds Still Keen On GPLv2". internetnews.com. Archived from the original on 2015-02-12. 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 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." https://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3720371/Torvalds+Still+Keen+On+GPLv2.htm ↩

  124. corbet (2006-10-01). "Busy busy busybox". lwn.net. Archived from the original on 2016-01-07. 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 https://lwn.net/Articles/202106/ ↩

  125. Landley, Rob (2006-09-09). "Re: Move GPLv2 vs v3 fun..." lwn.net. Archived from the original on 2016-01-07. Retrieved 2015-11-21. 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. https://lwn.net/Articles/202110/ ↩

  126. "HP Press Release: HP Contributes Source Code to Open Source Community to Advance Adoption of Linux". www.hp.com. Archived from the original on 2011-12-27. Retrieved 2016-01-14. https://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2008/080623a.html ↩

  127. Prokoudine, Alexandre (26 January 2012). "What's up with DWG adoption in free software?". librearts.org. Retrieved 2025-03-09. [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." https://librearts.org/2012/01/whats-up-with-dwg-adoption-in-free-software/ ↩

  128. Denis-Courmont, Rémi. "VLC media player to remain under GNU GPL version 2". videolan.org. Archived from the original on 2015-11-22. 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" 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. https://www.videolan.org/press/2007-1.html ↩

  129. Brockmeier 2010. - Brockmeier, Joe (September 15, 2010). "Apple's Selective Contributions to GCC". LWN.net. Archived from the original on 2020-01-01. Retrieved 2015-06-22. https://lwn.net/Articles/405417/ ↩

  130. "LLVM Developer Policy". LLVM. Archived from the original on November 13, 2012. Retrieved November 19, 2012. https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#license ↩

  131. Brockmeier 2010. - Brockmeier, Joe (September 15, 2010). "Apple's Selective Contributions to GCC". LWN.net. Archived from the original on 2020-01-01. Retrieved 2015-06-22. https://lwn.net/Articles/405417/ ↩

  132. Holwerda 2011. - Holwerda, Thom (March 26, 2011). "Apple Ditches SAMBA in Favour of Homegrown Replacement". OS News. Archived from the original on 2012-01-14. Retrieved 2015-06-22. https://www.osnews.com/story/24572/ ↩

  133. "FSF releases the GNU General Public License, version 3 — Free Software Foundation — Working together for free software". www.fsf.org. Retrieved 2025-04-15. https://www.fsf.org/news/gplv3_launched ↩

  134. "Kernel developers' position on GPLv3 [LWN.net]". lwn.net. Retrieved 2025-04-15. https://lwn.net/Articles/200422/ ↩

  135. O'Grady, Stephen (2017-01-13). "The State of Open Source Licensing". tecosystems. Retrieved 2025-04-15. https://redmonk.com/sogrady/2017/01/13/the-state-of-open-source-licensing/ ↩

  136. Leemhuis, Thorsten (7 July 2017). "Kommentar: Linux scheitert an Egozentrik" (in German). heise online. Archived from the original on 7 July 2017. Retrieved 12 July 2017. https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Kommentar-Linux-scheitert-an-Egozentrik-3766433.html ↩

  137. Leemhuis, Thorsten (7 July 2017). "Kommentar: Linux scheitert an Egozentrik" (in German). heise online. Archived from the original on 7 July 2017. Retrieved 12 July 2017. https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Kommentar-Linux-scheitert-an-Egozentrik-3766433.html ↩

  138. "Sun to Acquire MySQL". MySQL AB. Archived from the original on 2011-07-18. Retrieved 2008-01-16. https://web.archive.org/web/20110718044718/https://mysql.com/news-and-events/sun-to-acquire-mysql.html ↩

  139. Thomson 2011. - Thomson, Iain (September 16, 2011). "Oracle offers commercial extensions to MySQL". The Register. Archived from the original on 2019-10-26. Retrieved 2015-06-22. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/16/oracle_commercial_extensions_mysql/ ↩

  140. Samson 2011. - Samson, Ted (March 17, 2011). "Non-Oracle MySQL fork deemed ready for prime time". InfoWorld. Archived from the original on 2015-06-23. Retrieved 2015-06-22. https://www.infoworld.com/article/2623894/linux/non-oracle-mysql-fork-deemed-ready-for-prime-time.html ↩

  141. Nelson 2009. - Nelson, Russell (December 13, 2009). "Open Source, MySQL, and trademarks". Opensource.org. Open Source Initiative. Archived from the original on 2011-10-21. Retrieved 2015-06-22. https://web.archive.org/web/20111021095017/https://opensource.org/node/496 ↩

  142. Niccolai 2012. - Niccolai, James (June 20, 2012). "Oracle agrees to 'zero' damages in Google lawsuit, eyes appeal". Computerworld. Archived from the original on 2012-11-17. Retrieved 2015-06-22. https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9228298/Oracle_agrees_to_zero_damages_in_Google_lawsuit_eyes_appeal ↩

  143. Jones 2012. - Jones, Pamela (October 5, 2012). "Oracle and Google File Appeals". Groklaw. Archived from the original on 2012-12-01. Retrieved 2015-06-22. https://web.archive.org/web/20121201130542/https://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20121005082638280 ↩

  144. Berry, David M. (2008). Copy, Rip Burn: The Politics of Copyleft and Open Source (1 ed.). London: Pluto Press. p. 272. ISBN 978-0745324142. Archived from the original on 2021-07-09. Retrieved 2021-03-25. 978-0745324142 ↩

  145. Georgopoulou, Panayiota (2009). "The free/open source software movement Resistance or change?". Civitas - Revista de Ciências Sociais. 9 (1). doi:10.15448/1984-7289.2009.1.5569. ISSN 1519-6089. Archived from the original on 13 July 2017. Retrieved 11 July 2017. https://www.redalyc.org/html/742/74212712006/ ↩

  146. Georgopoulou, Panayiota (2009). "The free/open source software movement Resistance or change?". Civitas - Revista de Ciências Sociais. 9 (1). doi:10.15448/1984-7289.2009.1.5569. ISSN 1519-6089. Archived from the original on 13 July 2017. Retrieved 11 July 2017. https://www.redalyc.org/html/742/74212712006/ ↩

  147. Benkler 2003. - Benkler, Yochai (April 2003). "Freedom in the Commons: Towards a Political Economy of Information". Duke Law Journal. 52 (6). Archived from the original on 2011-03-06. Retrieved 2014-01-08. https://web.archive.org/web/20110306041013/https://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?52+Duke+L.+J.+1245+pdf ↩