Talk:Free and open-source software

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Naga Sravani Dasari, Nehanalla9, Lunchmeat30.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Move to FLOSS

It would be better to move this page to FLOSS instead of being under the FOSS name. FLOSS is more neutral as it clearly marks the differences between free, open source and price. Filiprino (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe that FOSS is the WP:COMMONNAME here. While I've nothing fundamentally against Richard Stallman (and even exchanged emails with him a very long time ago, providing patches for some bugs in Emacs and other GNU things, before GNU was so widely known), I see FLOSS as being more something which is pushing his philosophical and political agenda. There are certainly things to be admired about what RMS & FSF have achieved, and their enduring commitment to software freedom, but many of their positions are loaded with POV to varying extents. FLOSS and FOSS asserts that FLOSS is more neutral, but it is from a non-neutral source which clearly states that neutrality is not one of their goals in the same article. I see FLOSS as marginally less neutral because of that, although that does not really matter here. The key thing is which is the more common or widespread usage, which I believe is FOSS. Can you supply evidence that FLOSS is more commonly or widely used than FOSS in neutral (i.e. not FSF or similar) sources? Murph9000 (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I think FLOSS is a better title for this page than FOSS because:

1) It actually includes FOSS

2) It eliminates any ambiguity. I don't think removing ambiguity means helping one side! If anything, it would even things out

Actually, I think libre removes ambiguity for both sides, because, sadly, the open source term has been co-opted and is used for a lot of things that have nothing to do with software (like Open-source intelligence) as well as its opposite, proprietary software itself (see openwashing)! So libre, exactly for the reason that it's a very specific term lifted from French/Spanish uncommon in any other field than tech, helps disambiguate both open source and free software, because when you see it, it's clear and unmistakable that we are talking about FSF and OSI compliance, which is the original intent of FOSS.

I would add that FLOSS is more in line with the original *NIX geek culture than FOSS. While both are valid English words, I would argue foss is a very uncommon English word while floss is a very common English word. It also evokes an image which makes it funny (dental floss), like many other *NIX acronyms (like GNU itself or WINE or LAME).

Lastly, it's very hard to measure which acronym is more used exactly for the reason that "floss" is a common word. You can't really use Google Trends because "foss" only refers to FOSS but "floss" refers to both FOSS and dental floss. But, if you can take the word of a random anonymous Wikipedia user, I think that even if I believe FOSS to be the more widespread term, lately I've been seeing a more widespread usage of FLOSS than before and there are both peer-reviewed scientific articles and public administrations using FLOSS, so it is not by any means an obscure term.

For these reasons, I agree that this page should be FLOSS instead of FOSS. 93.40.195.166 (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Bruh, how about Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation? They call it free software, and if the articles are merged, there would be problems(just sometimes). So can you please think about others? Gnu779 (talk) 13:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Really go to file 119.13.57.48 (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

FLOSS vs. FOSS 2000-2019 on Google ngram viewer

not NPOV/original research

these statements are not NPOV and/or constitute original research:

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.[97]

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.[97]

seems fine to attribute statements like this to third parties, but as written they look like statements of fact, when they are opinions/analysis that emerge from the page authors. They should either be referred to via quotations from third parties, or removed. there are other statements of this sort on this page that have similar problems. Mr H3vnu83987 (talk) 13:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

how is "Infringes on user's civil liberties and human rights" a drawback of FOSS to proprietary software?

this may be a problem with my understanding of english language, which is not my mother tongue. all the paragraphs in "drawback to proprietary software" describe disadvantages of FOSS compared to proprietary software.

Security and user-support, Hardware and software compatibility, Bugs and missing features, Less guarantees of development, Missing applications, Technical skills and user-friendliness all list things where FOSS is at a disadvantage.

as a result, it looks like the phrase "Infringes on user's civil liberties and human rights" is also talking about a disadvantage of FOSS compared to proprietary software, as in "FOSS would infringe on users rights" whereas proprietary software would not. a careful reading of that paragraph makes clear that this is not the case. the paragraph is instead talking about a disadvantage of proprietary software, and an advantage of FOSS.

given that all other paragraphs in this section are about FOSS disadvantages, i feel that this paragraph about human rights is better placed in the section above as an advantage of FOSS.

i found this issue because i had asked my team to research FOSS so they could learn about it, and when i asked them "what are the disadvantages of FOSS" they came back with the answer that FOSS infringes on human rights. 61.187.123.141 (talk) 06:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the contradictory section. The editor who put it in probably misinterpreted the "Drawbacks to proprietary software" section as "Drawbacks of proprietary software". In any case, the content is already covered at Free and open-source software § Personal control, customizability and freedom. Thanks for bringing up this issue! — Newslinger talk 16:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Major contradiction between GPL'd software being linked here as FOSS and the opening sentence

"Free and open-source software (FOSS) is software that is both free software and open-source software[a] where anyone is freely licensed to use, copy, study, and change the software in any way" -- The GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) does not freely allow one to use the software in any way, as it prohibits not only using it in proprietary software, but prohibits any changes or additions you make from being used in proprietary software. So it even prohibits your changes from "being used in any way." There are GNU GPL'd pieces of software all over Wikipedia that are linked to this article in their opening sentence. They should either all be removed as being "free and open source," or this article should be modified to state that FOSS can cover both "free in any way," and, "not free in every way" licenses. 2601:18B:8200:3AE:5170:1738:CC62:F931 (talk) 10:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

FOSS has a definition. If the software that links to this page is saying they are FOSS and they are not, then the edits need to go into those articles, not this one. GimliDotNet (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

But Wikipedia's definition is sourced back to the GNU Project, which does not actually support that "in any way" includes using it in proprietary software. The site referenced doesn't even use the words "in any way" (though they do use "for any purpose") but as this use is meta (it is not a use of the output of the program but instead wraps the software up in a conceptual package and uses that) this purpose isn't necessarily being included by the reference source. So it isn't necessarily defined by the absolutes of |in any way| or |for any purpose|; and so, for example, banning its use in murder may not conflict with it being "free." The wording of the definition as it stands right now reads as an absolute, though; so we have, "If it isn't permissible to use it in murder it is not Free and Open Source Software." So perhaps it needs to be more accurately defined to include what freedoms can be disallowed while still being considered, "Free." Basically, the underlying issue is the philosophical one of: "An absolute 'free' is paradoxical, for it must contain the freedom to contradict itself." 2601:18B:8200:3AE:7936:B754:B35A:FB0F (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Source 79 " Vaughan-Nichols 2009." is invalid

In the table under "Adoption by governments" it cites "In February 2009, the United States White House moved its website to Linux servers using Drupal for content management" to #79 links here: https://www.pcworld.com/article/174746/obama_invites_open_source_into_the_white_house.html

This page no longer exists & I'm not able to find a similar article on the pcworld website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.33.245.11 (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

It's available on the Internet Archive TEDickey (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Toronto supported by WikiProject Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Open-source software and Free software into Free and open-source software

As noted, the definitions of free and open-access software are so similar that very little software would count as free but not open-access or vice versa. Having three articles results in duplication with no benefit for readers. Philosophical differences between free and open-source are appropriately covered in other articles. (t · c) buidhe 16:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. This has already been discussed not just once, but twice, both of which garnered strong opposition. Free software and open source software are by definition two distinct concepts. Rehashing an old debate in this case is not constructive. For more reasons why this should not go through, please read the previous discussion. Sink Cat (talk) 02:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

These discussions are from 2008. When we have many sources saying that the software classified as open source is essentially the same set of software as that which is classified as free, there is no reason to retain three separate articles about the same topic. While free software = open source software, the free software movement is justifiably a separate topic from open-source movement. (t · c) buidhe 02:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

What are these sources that say free software = open source software? ~Kvng (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Kvng sure:

• "Any software that is open source is also free, and vice versa."
• "Ironically, the creation of two names [free software and open source] allowed people to identify one thing, for these two names referred to identical practices, licenses, tools, and organizations. Free Software and Open Source shared everything “material,” but differed vocally and at great length with respect to ideology."
• "The terms “free software” and “open source” stand for almost the same range of programs."
• "The definitions of free software and open source software largely align and essentially include the same license terms"
• "Both terms refer to essentially the same set of licenses and software" (t · c) buidhe 06:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Most of these acknowledge there is a difference but appear to characterize it and minimal or immaterial. I assume by the discussion here so far and previously elsewhere that we could find other sources that stress the differences. In any case, these are clearly related topics and not clearly the same topic but articles don't have to be about a single topic and the proposal to cover them both in a single article should be workable. The alternative is a lot of cross referencing and potentially repeated material in the two articles which sounds more difficult to read and maintain but already established and also workable. With two workable solutions and the history of past discussion opposing change, I doubt we will get consensus to merge here. I can go either way but will direct my effort elsewhere. ~Kvng (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The opposers have not cited any sources whatsoever but ok. (t · c) buidhe 05:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I found a third additional prior discussion. But also, consensus can change, and in this case common usage of the terms may have changed since 2008. Retro (talk | contribs) 16:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. They're different things. Free software can be closed source, and paid software can be open source. Smirkjuice (talk) 04:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

[P]aid software can be open source. If that's meant to imply that free software is the opposite of paid software then that's completely wrong. Literally the lead of free software says Free software is a matter of liberty, not price; all users are legally free to do what they want with their copies of a free software (including profiting from them) regardless of how much is paid to obtain the program. (emphasis mine) See also Gratis versus libre § "Free beer" and "freedom of speech" distinction. Nickps (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Free software is different from open source software. Agreeing with Sink Cat here. JetpackJackson (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

So can someone remove the tags again? They immediately make it look discouraging and degrade, completely unnecessarily. As to the matter: one is a strict (?) superset of the other. Which also means that one (OSS) by definition includes stuff very much not free. So at best all you'd win is an exercise in pointless differentiation, qualification, and hedging while illuminating nobody but confusing anyone, before long yourself as well. Arguably, in practice "open source" is often a question of code availability only (what is), free software is always one of rights, licenses, the law (what should be), life and death that is, so it's an entirely different affair. Did you even read the articles? -89.245.22.9 (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing open source with source-available. Open source isn't just code availability, the code must also be "open" as in usable for any purpose. Nickps (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Not the same thing. There is open source software which is not free software. See https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/difference-between-free-software-and-open-source-software/ Meters (talk) 07:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose I fully agree with Smirkjuice and Meters. Sebastián Arena... 11:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Free software (in this sense) means open-source, so i agree with the stance to merge free software to foss. hi, my name is Pickleishere. i like Programming, and will be mad if that is taken from me. thanks, check my talk page here -> talk 04:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Support While free software and open-source software are not the same, just looking at the number of licenses that meet both the Free Software definition and the Open Source Definition one can tell they have a pretty significant overlap. In fact, comparing the two definitions directly shows just how similar they are in spirit. Nickps (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I would argue that there are a lot of pairs of articles which are "similar in spirit." Should we also merge Software Engineering and Software Development? They have a pretty significant overlap, after all. I say no. Jtbwikiman (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment 'Free and open-source software' (or FOSS) definitionally seems to contain 'free software' and 'open-source software'. To me, buidhe makes an apt point that while the movements have two separate pages (free software movement, open-source movement), the topics of free software and open-source software have a high degree of overlap.

The topics are similar enough that History of free software and History of open-source software both redirect to History of free and open-source software. Before October 2009, this was titled 'History of free software', but it ended up here after a variety of attempted moves (1, 2, 3) and one low-participation RM about the hyphenation.

This topic is somewhat contentious: you can see for example we have an article alternative terms for free software that presents free software as the primary term, with open-source software and FOSS being later derivations.

It seems likely to me that all three articles could be merged if sources support it, but I haven't looked deeply enough into sources to definitively say. Retro (talk | contribs) 16:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Free software as a concept came first, but now open source software is more than twice as popular (Google scholar results since 2020: [1] [2]) They describe the same software though. (t · c) buidhe 17:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

They don't exactly describe the same software, though.

The Free Software Foundation says:

"It is not exactly the same class of software: they accept some licences that we consider too restrictive, and there are free software licences they have not accepted. However, the differences in extension of the category are small: nearly all free software is open source, and nearly all open source software is free." Jtbwikiman (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Good point. Ignoring the large conceptual difference is limiting the success of this proposal though: they don't necessarily the same software. People often use the term open source when they mean free software. What Jtbwikiman pointed out can be solved by putting things in a subsection and clarifying all of this in the lead already as well as possibly with more details below. For example, there is research and debate on what criteria must be met before AI software can be considered free software like here (and note that they also use the term open source there). Prototyperspective (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and I think your suggestion to move only Free Software (not Open Source Software) into Free and Open Source Software is appropriate for this reason. The Free and Open Source Software article is the perfect place for us to describe the subtle differences between these two concepts. Jtbwikiman (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I would argue that 'open source' is a real life version of a WP:POVFORK, which could be retained on Wikipedia. I'd be okay with either merging or keeping it as is. PhotographyEdits (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment Free Software and Open-source software is so similar, that I believe that they should be merged. hi, my name is Pickleishere. i like Programming, and will be mad if that is taken from me. thanks, check my talk page here -> talk 00:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Support: The two concepts are distinct and have important differences, but because free software is open source by requirement, 90% of the content of Free software also applies to Free and open source software. Free software can be reasonably characterized as a subsection of "open source software" given all of it is open source: it's just a subset based on a movement. I think this is the best way for Wikipedia to organize it.

Major caveat: Merging these long and complicated articles will be very difficult. Splitting based on other distinctions may be necessary. Proposal: maybe merge 90% of Free Software and all of Open Source into this article, but keep the Free software article and let it discuss the complexities of free software (and keep its history section?) Mrfoogles (talk) 03:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Support merging Free software into Free and open-source software which are about the same thing and buidhe made two good true points that need to be considered. Nevertheless, Free software and open source software are by definition two distinct concepts but free software is a subset of open source software – keeping these distinct or instead transcluding parts of the article could be better. These aren't only Philosophical differences but fundamental and functional differences – if you can only see the code but not use or modify it then it's not truly open/free, just transparent so FOSS has a different goal and goes further than OS. I'm sure the proposal would have gone better so far if you were a bit better informed on the differences or expressed that better, and why propose merging all three when there could be just a merger of these two? Maybe a new proposal should be created for that. --Prototyperspective (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose merge with free software, support merge with open source software. Virtually all open source software is also free and it's questionable if non-free open source can truly be considered such, but there are many examples of free, closed source software programames.Jokojis (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

but there are many examples of free, closed source software programames No, there aren't. Being free software requires it to be open source thus there can't be any free software that is not also open source. The user does not know what free software here refers to with the rationale being false and thus the vote should not be considered. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Unlike what buidhe puports, not all open-source software is free software. Free software is a concept that, although a subset of open-source, is distinct from open-source in that:

1. It predates open-source.

2. It is fundamentally undissociable with copyleft, which open-source isn't.

(Hence why I also think that replacing the free software page with a FOSS page is misleading, as "free and open source software" gives the false impression that they are equivalent, when they aren't)

Ever since the 1990s, companies have tried to erase free software and replace it with corporate-friendlier open source.

It's really saddening to see that they succeeded at nearly all levels. Alwaysgonnaedit ([[User talk:Sebastián Arena... 18:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)edit|talk]]) 20:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide a source that supports the statement [Free software] is fundamentally undissociable with copyleft, which open-source isn't? The Free Software Definition does not even mention copyleft and while the FSF does prefer copyleft licenses, they have approved several permissive licenses as well. Nickps (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. --Gmestanley (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose. I fully agree with the arguments explained by Alwaysgonnaedit. Sebastián Arena... 18:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Free software is not the same as open-source software. Open-source software primarily focuses on the source code being out in the open for the public to see. VSCode declares itself open-source, but its source code isn't even fully public. Free software happens when you're free to use, modify and share it as you wish. While the FSF says source code has to be available to allow freedom of modification, it's specifically for whoever it's being distributed to, not necessarily the public strictly, and that's only one part of it instead of the central idea. These are incredibly different meanings. Richard Stallman says the meaning of free software existed since basically software itself was a thing despite the word not existing yet, and the two were synonymous, and while I don't have concrete evidence (he cites his own experiences like "[At MIT,] we just shared our software and its source code") I'm still inclined to believe him for the other evidences he presents and amount of experience he has. However I know for a fact that open-source software has only existed very recently, since the 90s. There is reason here to believe these are two root concepts that were just merged based on one part.

Say that in the hypothetical future where the two articles have been merged, a kid gets curious about an obscure program that declares itself free software. They decide to look it up, maybe use the wiki as it's a very famous website, and it redirects them to Free and open-source software instead. Why is this other kind of software that's not what they wanted to look up showing up? Maybe they would also feel, perhaps even later, like an article about it was taken away by editors, like I have thought before. That would happen for no good reason. --Gmestanley (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, lots of sources indicate these are distinct concepts. FOSS/FLOSS is a superset term than is intentionally agnostic between them. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

No, that is false, FOSS refers only to free software – open source is in the name to make it clearer what is meant. For example, people also often refer to "free software" with "open source", actually colloquially that is a more common term. All free software is also open source. There also is free music on Wikimedia Commons in c:Category:Audio files of music that is licensed under CCBY but it's not open source since the project files by which you can open and modify the music track are not included. This should help make it clear why it's useful to also have open source in the name. "Free software" is a bad name to begin with since most people on this planet when it comes to products associate word "free" with "gratis" and this won't change. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Strongly oppose Rebranding free software with a term that is commonly assumed to mean; gratis, source-available software is a high insult against freedom. Suiseiseki42 (talk) 08:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Support merge: As said above: Philosophical differences between free and open-source are appropriately covered in other articles. The differences between them are not large enough to justify having two articles (there are no benefits to either editors and readers). The ideologies not being the same (yes, I fully understand the difference myself) do not itself justify them having separate articles. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Strongly oppose: Free and open software, is a concept in it's own right. There are examples of open-source software where while the underlying code has been made open source, the use of the software is regulated under a license which restricts it's use; this contradicts the concept of free software. An example is GPT-3 which is open source, but the use is restricted under a license. Likewise, a software which is determined to be 'free' in terms of a license which allows free use, the underlying code of the software doesn't necessarily have to be open-source, an example might be Microsoft's .NET Runtime and Libraries. In summary, free software is not necessarily completely open sourced, and open source software is most certainly not necessarily 'free' due to legal licensing restraints. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 11:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is well-known but not an argument for not merging.
The distinction would be clarified in the lead and via separate sections. I think buidhe did not communicate well that this is known and why it would be good to merge despite of that. All free software is also open source so it can go into one article. Should it? I think yes because people also often use the term "open source" when they mean "free software", it's not useful to duplicate things like this and it makes it harder for people who don't already know what "free software" is to actually learn about either and the differences between them. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow, if an example like gpt-3 is open source but not 'free' it would just be open source right? If you recognise that distinction, then you should agree that Open source article and open and free article shouldn't be merged. You could argue that Free software can be merged with it however. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

If you recognise that distinction, then you should agree that Open source article and open and free article shouldn't be merged No, that is not the case. Free software is a subset of open source software. So it could be merged.
I only supported merging the two you mentioned and only noted that also merging the open source article may be best. It would be better to have a separate discussion about that. Maybe it would be best to not merge the open source article but transclude it (or much of it) into the open source software article underneath an explanation of what the differences between that and other open source software are. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary, the concept of free software is very distinct from open source, it concerns how the software can be used (a licensing related matter) as well as the openness of the code, I wouldn't call that a subset of open source, closely related and something which should be mentioned and linked in the open source article, but they warrant an article of their own in my view, if free software is going to be merged it should be merged with free and open. Also you could argue that free software is very much a philosophy, where as open source is a more black and white concept. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Open source just stops halfway where free software goes further. A software being open source means the code is transparent and can be inspected or contributed to. It's very distinct but still a subset. There is not one Open-source-software movement and the Free software movement but only the latter (which should also be clear when you read the former article. Open source is a better known, better understood term. Free software is also open to modification and re-use so it's more open than transparent-source software.
I think the main difference or reason is that I put greater importance on what most people are aware of and the confusion the current fragmentation of articles causes to many readers: most people (unlike you & other Talk page editors) do not know the difference between open source and free software so they land on either of the three articles basically by chance and most likely on the open-source article because that is the far more popular term and often used to refer to free software (by current article naming which doesn't well reflect public language anymore). They won't read diligently and understand the difference, understand that it was free software that they meant to learn about, and then go to the Free software article. They will either not understand the difference (or that it's FS they meant to read about) or leave it at that so if you care about public education (and free software) I think one should support some sort of merging (in a good way where the distinction is made clear). The terms "free" and "open" are both ambiguous. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

If you're worried about people going to the open article when they were truly after free and open, then a wiki crosslink and articulation of the difference within the open article should suffice. Combining 'open' with 'free' and 'free and open' would be like combining Cloud with Fog and Water vapor; you could make a really good arguments for it 'Clouds and fog are just a subset of water vapor', 'clouds and fog are the same thing at different altitudes', but if they are subject areas which are prominently used separately then they mandate their own articles. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Over the years, companies such as Meta Platforms have been misusing the term open-source to refer to proprietary source-available software (such as Llama) that is incompatible with both The Open Source Definition and The Free Software Definition. This usage debate only affects open-source software, whereas free software is unaffected due to its different philosophical background, which other editors have noted in the discussion above.

Additionally, in recent developments, the Open Source Initiative has released The Open Source AI Definition, which differs significantly from the Free Software Foundation's planned definition for free machine learning applications, in that free AI must be derived from free training data, whereas open-source AI may be derived from closed-source training data that is openly disclosed. This difference is significant enough to establish that there is insufficient overlap between free software and open-source software to justify merging these articles. — Newslinger talk 21:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

However, when it comes to foss that is both free and open source, meaning it is both free and open source. All free software is open source, it's just that this name makes it clearer. FSF does not have some kind of authority of what is or isn't free software. The training data doesn't matter when it comes to the software itself. Free media is something different than free software. An artist who has looked at proprietary art online or in a public exhibition can still produce free art even when there's a chance of being inspired by the proprietary art. Free software is a subtype of open source software. Open source and free software are distinct and quite different, yes. There are lots of articles about distinct subjects where one is a subtype of the other. For example Effects of climate change includes information on effects on health. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

As Terrainman explained above, topic A purportedly being a subset of topic B is not a sufficient or policy-based reason to merge an article about topic A into an article that discusses topics A and B together. For example, even though humans are a subset of mammals, that is not adequate justification to merge the Human article into the Animal article, the Mammal article, or any other article that covers both humans and mammals. Such a merge would deny Wikipedia an article that focuses primarily on humans, and not on their relation to other mammals. Likewise, merging the Free software article into the Free and open-source software article would deny Wikipedia an article that focuses primarily on free software, and not on its relation to open-source software.

It is also debatable whether free software is a subset of open-source software; this claim is not well-supported by reliable sources. Using this claim to advocate for a merge misses the point that other editors in this discussion have mentioned: the history and philosophy of free software is not a subset of the history and philosophy of open-source software, and merging the Free software article into the Free and open-source software article would overlook the fact that free software is notable independently of both open-source software and FOSS. In reference to your article example, there would be consensus against merging Effects of climate change on human health (subset) into Effects of climate change (superset), so I am not sure how the existence of both of these articles would support your position.

The Free Software Foundation (FSF) published The Free Software Definition, which is the first and most commonly referenced definition of free software, so I disagree with your assertion that the FSF is not an authoritative source on the topic of free software. Whether "The training data doesn't matter when it comes to the software itself" is not a settled legal matter; see all of the ongoing lawsuits in OpenAI § Copyright infringement in training data that challenge the legality of using unlicensed proprietary content as training data for large language models. — Newslinger talk 08:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

not a sufficient or policy-based reason to merge Indeed. It doesn't mean it has to be merged, it was more about whether it can be merged. I think the best solution may possible be to have a separate Free and open source software article, merged with Free software, that is transcluded in the open source article. So readers of the open source article can see all the info rather than it being fragmented into articles that are much less read.

Likewise, merging the Free software article into the Free and open-source software article would deny Wikipedia an article that focuses primarily on free software, and not on its relation to open-source software. The FOSS article does not focus on the relation to open source, it just includes that part in its title, the scope is essentially the same which is why they should be merged. It's important to include it in the name since that makes it less ambiguous what is meant and because "open source" is the far more popular term that people use more often and search more often (see links above) when they actually mean free software / free and open source software. This makes it clearer that what is meant is the freedoms to modify and redistribute, not freemium software and also names the open source aspect that is about the transparency and availability of the code. For example there are a lot of audio files where users have the freedom to modify and redistribute in c:Category:Audio files of music but their "source code" so to say is not open – the project files with the individual tracks of sounds is usually not public so it's difficult to actually remix these when just having the final mp3/flac but not the track project file (like for this track); being open source is as important as the license set on the source code to free software / free and open source software. If you care about free software / FOSS you're just shooting yourself in the foot but it may take some time and education / deliberation until people realize that. You're just keeping the public confused and unaware about free software / FOSS (its principles, differences to other kinds of software, etc) for no good reason.

whether free software is a subset of open-source software All free software / FOSS is open source where the code is public, this is an essential requirement. so I disagree with your assertion that the FSF is not an authoritative source on the topic of free software They are authoritative but not the authority that defines it but one very notable authority to cite. Whether "The training data doesn't matter when it comes to the software itself" is not a settled legal matter I'm not saying it definitely doesn't matter to the software, but that it doesn't matter to whether or not the software / code itself is/can be free software. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

No, the scope of the Free and open-source software article is not ambiguous; the article note specifically states: "FOSS is an inclusive term that covers both free software and open-source software, which despite describing similar development models, have differing cultures and philosophical backgrounds." Free and open-source software is a superset of both free software and open-source software. The summary style guideline describes an entire class of articles that link to subtopics with separate articles that focus on the subtopics individually. This established article pattern makes it clear that claiming that an article subject (e.g. free software) is a subtopic or subset of another article subject (e.g. free and open-source software) is not a good reason for merging the article about the subtopic into the article about the parent topic.

Free software originated from the free software movement, whereas open-source software originated from the open-source software movement; these are two distinct origins that differentiate multiple aspects of free software from those of open-source software. Your merger proposal advocates for the removal of the standalone Free software article, and has the effect of reducing the visibility of free software and increasing the relative visibility of open-source software on Wikipedia, despite free software and open-source software both being independently notable, which makes your proposal a violation of the neutrality policy. Even though you disagree with people who "care about free software / FOSS", that is not a valid policy-based reason for removing the article about the software classification that you care less for.

Software "where the code is public" is not a complete description of open-source software; the Open-source software article states: "Open-source software (OSS) is computer software that is released under a license in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software and its source code to anyone and for any purpose." Whether free software is a subset of open-source software is a claim that needs support from reliable sources to be considered, and cannot be taken as fact without such support. The table at Comparison of free and open-source software licenses § Approvals shows that, in practice, free software licenses are not always considered open-source software licenses, and open-source software licenses are not always considered free software licenses, which makes neither of these classifications a subset of the other.

Whether AI software derived from unlicensed proprietary content "is/can be free software" is also not a settled matter, and your personal opinion on this issue is original research that should not be used as a basis for a proposed merge. — Newslinger talk 23:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up, that's a good point. I think the lead is false and does not have a source. Of course I could be wrong but 1) in most uses of the word, people mean free software (both free to be modified and open source code) and 2) the article in that sense is only about free software 3) the article used to say Free and open-source software (FOSS) is software that is both free software and open-source software.
This distinction may explain much of the disagreement in this merger discussion. Maybe that needs a separate discussion. Somebody seems to have sneaked in a change to the lead to make the article about something else. You can also see how for example Portal:Free and open-source software says (FOSS) is software that is distributed in a manner that allows its users to run the software for any purpose, to redistribute copies of it, and to examine, study, and modify, the source code. People often describe instance of free software as free and open source and that isn't because they want to use the less specific term but because it's synonymous. The rest of the article is not about free software and open source software as two things but about free software aka FOSS. Good to see we agree that that 'AI software derived from unlicensed proprietary content [is definitely not] free software" is [not] a settled matter [if the FSF claims that]'. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

And we shouldn't make up our own definition but look at WP:RS and adhere to WP:OR:

• [3] FOSS means Free and Open Source Software. It doesn’t mean the software is free of cost. It means that the software's source code is open for all and anyone is free to use, study and modify the code.
• [4] the terms are essentially interchangeable, except when being used specifically to discuss the history or connotations of the terminological difference itself. Some people also prefer to use the term “free and open source software” (or FOSS, FLOSS [free, libre and open source software]) for this reason.
• [5] Free and open source software (FOSS) is any computer program released under a licence that grants users rights to run the program for any purpose, to study it, to modify it, and to redistribute it in original or modified form.
• [6] Free and open-source software (FOSS) allows users and programmers to edit, modify or reuse the software’s source code. […] The term “free” indicates that the software does not have constraints on copyrights.
• [7] Free and open source software, also F/OSS, FOSS, or FLOSS […] is software that is liberally licensed to grant the right of users to study, change, and improve its design […] "free" is intended to refer to the freedom to copy and re-use the software

[etc] This may need to get fixed/addressed first. Prototyperspective (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

There's no conflict between your links and the Free and open-source software article, which states: "Free and open-source software (FOSS) is software that is available under a license that grants the right to use, modify, and distribute the software, modified or not, to everyone free of charge." It's not clear what you are claiming is "false" about the lead section. Even your second link affirms that the free software and open-source software have different histories, which is one of the reasons two-thirds of the editors in this discussion oppose the proposed merge.

Your merge proposal, which differs from the original merge proposal posted by Buidhe, is even less justified because your comments provide no evidence that would support eliminating the standalone Free software article while retaining the standalone Open-source software article.

I said "Whether AI software derived from unlicensed proprietary content 'is/can be free software' is also not a settled matter" because the FSF's definition of free machine learning applications is still pending. Once that definition is published, it becomes the de facto definition of free AI in the context of free software unless reliable sources contest it. — Newslinger talk 01:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

There's no conflict between your links and the Free and open-source software article there is not except for a small part about the lead that was changed recently, this: FOSS is an inclusive umbrella term for free software and open-source software That part is also contradicting the earlier part of the lead that you just cited. I thought you referring to that part when you quoted "FOSS is an inclusive term that covers both free software and open-source software…. The sources I provided, other WP pages, the common use of the word FOSS, the earlier lead that was there for a long time, and the introductory sentence prior to that part all contradict that part.

Even your second link affirms that the free software and open-source software have different histories, which is one of the reasons two-thirds of the editors in this discussion oppose the proposed merge. Exactly, the open source movement and the free software movement have different histories, different values, different demographics, and different rationales. I've been arguing that this is not a reason to not merge FOSS with free software and then transclude that in the open source article because, briefly, FOSS and free software are synonymous and free software is a subset of open source software and open source a far more popular commonly used term when referring to free software.

that would support eliminating the standalone Free software article while retaining the standalone Open-source software article. Sorry you misunderstood, there would still be a standalone Free software article. I basically oppose the part about the proposal that would merge it away and instead support 1 merger and 1 transclusion. The free software article would stay separate, merged into the FOSS article here, and be transcluded into the open source software article. This means there would then be the articles Free software movement, Free and open source software (FOSS), and Open source software where the latter includes most of the content in the FOSS article.

The FSF defining something does not settle a controversial subject, no. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that merging involves eliminating a standalone page, whereas copying and transclusion do not. If I am understanding your comment correctly, you do not actually support the Free software article being merged into the Free and open-source software article. Please correct me if my interpretation of your comment is wrong.

I disagree with transcluding the Free and open-source software (superset) article into the Open-source software (subset) article, because none of the Free and open-source software article's content specific to free software would be under the scope of the Open-source software article. On the other hand, I can understand and am open to the possibility of transcluding content from the Open-source software (subset) article into the Free and open-source software (superset) article; this is parallel to your proposal to transclude content from the Free software (subset) article into the Free and open-source software (superset) article.

It is not contradictory to provide a definition of free and open-source software and to state that free and open-source software is an umbrella term that encompasses both free software and open-source software. (Feel free to elaborate on how you believe that is a contradiction.) Free and open-source software has been described in this article as an "umbrella term" since 2017 and as an "inclusive term" since 2007, so this is not a statement that was "sneaked in".

Many reliable academic sources affirm that free and open-source software is an umbrella term, including but not limited to:

Academic sources describing free and open-source software as an umbrella term encompassing free software and open-source software

Table 1. Summary of key terms. label definition synonym(s) antonym(s) free and open source software (FOSS) any computer program released under a licence that grants users rights to run the program for any purpose, to study it, to modify it, and to redistribute it in original or modified form free/libre and open source software (FLOSS or F/LOSS) proprietary software free software FOSS distributed with a licence approved by the Free Software Foundation free/libre software or libre software proprietary software or non-free software open source software FOSS distributed with a licence approved by the Open Source Initiative N/A proprietary software or closed source software —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. In this article, we review the published empirical research literature on development of Free/Libre and Open-Source Software (FLOSS) development. FLOSS is an umbrella term covering a diversity of kinds of software and approaches to development, so we start this review by clarifying our focus. In general, the term free software or open-source software refers to software released under a license that permits the inspection use, modification, and redistribution of the software’s source code. The distinction between free software and open-source software is sometimes controversial, and there are important differences between these two development communities [Kelty 2008]. However, our focus in this article is research on their development processes, which are acknowledged by participants to be largely similar (Free Software Foundation, http://www.fsf.org), hence our use of this umbrella term. Crowston, Kevin; Wei, Kangning; Howison, James; Wiggins, Andrea (5 March 2008). "Free/Libre open-source software development: What we know and what we do not know". ACM Computing Surveys. 44 (2). Association for Computing Machinery: 7:1–7:35. doi:10.1145/2089125.2089127. ISSN 0360-0300. 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', each of which is explained in this section. [...] 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. 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 Review does not endorse any one licensing model, focus or emphasis, but rather seeks, in an academically rigorous and objective manner, to increase the knowledge and understanding about the legal mechanisms used by all forms of Free and Open Source Software licences. It uses the term Free and Open Source Software to cover both Free Software and Open Source Software. Mitchell, Iain G. (2009). "Foreword and statement of purpose: an introduction to IFOSS L. Rev". International Free and Open Source Software Law Review. 1 (1): 5. ISSN 2666-8106. Retrieved 15 December 2024. The term "Free and Open Source Software" includes both, Free Software as defined by the Free Software Foundation and Open Source Software as defined by the Open Source Initiative. In the following article, the term Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) will be used. Maracke, Catharina (2019). "Free and Open Source Software and FRAND-based patent licenses". Journal of World Intellectual Property. 22 (3–4). Wiley: 78–102. doi:10.1111/jwip.12114. ISSN 1747-1796. Retrieved 15 December 2024.

The Free Software Foundation (FSF) is the only prominent entity that classifies whether software and software licenses are free, and we are both in agreement that the FSF is an authoritative source. When the FSF publishes its definition of free AI, it will be the only authoritative source that has published such a definition, making its definition the de facto definition of free AI in the context of free software, unless reliable sources dispute it, which has historically not happened for FSF evaluations regarding free software. In fact, Fortunato (2021) – quoted above – defines free software as "FOSS distributed with a licence approved by the Free Software Foundation". A competing organization is free to publish a competing definition of free software or free AI, but as of today, no competing organization has ever successfully contested FSF's free software classifications in a way that has gained any traction. A definition that is effectively uncontested by reliable sources is not controversial. — Newslinger talk 22:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

you do not actually support the Free software article being merged into the Free and open-source software article I think I made it pretty clear that I think these two should be merged. For example again at This means there would then be the articles Free software movement, Free and open source software (FOSS), and Open source software where the latter includes most of the content in the FOSS article..

Free and open-source software is a subset of Open-source software, namely the open source software that is both free and open source.

That umbrella term part is correct as it's about software that is both free and open source at the same time. In that sense it's a term that encompasses both criteria and both commonly used words and in that sense is an umbrella term. The part I meant is in the lead, and it has been added to while it contradicts the rest of the article and is just false when it comes to how this term is used and the sources I provided. "Free software" is not a trademarked term by FSF, the word "free" is an adjective and when it comes to open source AI or free AI or FOSS AI, they do have a major say. The FSF classification of free software is accurate etc but that doesn't mean this article all about FSF, free software is much larger than the FSF. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

In Special:Diff/1263234776, you said that in your proposal, "there would still be a standalone Free software article". But in Special:Diff/1263305336, you are now saying that "these two should be merged". Because a merge would eliminate the standalone Free software article, it's not clear what your position is. Are you proposing for the standalone Free software article to be eliminated or not?

Additionally, could you clarify how exactly the statement that "FOSS is an inclusive umbrella term for free software and open-source software" "contradicts the rest of the article and is just false"? It's not clear to me why you think that is the case, especially in light of the academic sources I posted, which firmly establish that free and open-source software is the union (and not the intersection) of free software and open source software, which makes open-source software a subset of free and open-source software, and not the other way around. — Newslinger talk 22:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I meant that it would remain a standalone article in merged form and that it's merged into this article, the FOSS article which would remain being a standalone article. In addition, there are articles about Free software foundation and Free software movement. I never said FOSS would be the intersection of free software and open-source software. As said, there is no free software that is not also open source, so FOSS is a subset of open source software. I explained why earlier in the comment above and the comment including the 5 example supporting sources. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that you are indeed advocating for the elimination of the standalone Free software article. I disagree with this, because your proposal would prevent the whole topic of free software (and not a related topic like Free software movement) from being covered in a standalone Wikipedia article that does not also focus on open-source software. Meanwhile, your proposal would retain a standalone article for Open-source software in addition to separate related articles such as Open-source software movement. While that aligns with your self-stated belief that people who "care about free software / FOSS" are wrong, your proposal would introduce a bias in favor of the open-source software movement and against the free software movement through differences in article availability, which is non-neutral.

The academic sources I posted state unambiguously that all open-source software is also free and open-source software. I have reviewed your sources again, and none of them dispute this. As far as I can tell, the Free and open-source software article's statement that "FOSS is an inclusive umbrella term for free software and open-source software" is correct and aligns with all of the sources both of us have posted so far. — Newslinger talk 23:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

---

"For example, even though humans are a subset of mammals, that is not adequate justification to merge the Human article into the Animal article, the Mammal article, or any other article that covers both humans and mammals. Such a merge would deny Wikipedia an article that focuses primarily on humans, and not on their relation to other mammals."

I completely agree with this analogy. Sebastián Arena... 02:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with it too. The reason why it only partly applies is that FOSsoftware, as e.g. the WP:RS above and the lead point out, is the same as free software while Humans are not the same as Mammals. The analogy applies to whether the article should be merged into the open source software article. Free software / FOSS is a subset of open source software like Humans are a subset of Mammals.
Instead, a good idea would be to leave the article as a standalone article but include it in the Open-source software article. One could argue how large the fraction of nonfree open source software is or how it important it is in the context of open-source software, but even if it does make up only 50% of open source software (and it's more like 90%), WP:RS say it's a very common important component so why duplicate everything and make info on free software which would be in a header like == Free software == be short & hard to find for people not yet knowing about free software and thus searching for it using the by now far more common term for the same subject with less language-ambiguity "open-source"? I don't see any reason why except of course one wanted to intentionally dismiss or hide info on free software which I of course don't think is a reason you have. A section in an article does not focus on their relation to other kinds of the overarching subject by the way and just elaborate on the important component but this would still remain to be a standalone article anyway. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

References (proposed merge)

References

How does Linux claim to be FOSS?

If you read the definition of FOSS and even the GPL license, how does Linux banned Russian contributers without making a mockery of FOSS and GPL? I think this warrants an update to the article perhaps in the controversy sectionthat FOSS is not for everyone. 2405:6E00:2800:93A6:21A1:2FBA:3F67:D44B (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Russians are not banned from Linux as a whole. Russia is likely going to gain its own Linux community after the removal of several maintainers. (see https://therecord.media/russia-separate-linux-community-kernel-maintainers-delisted)

Distros like Astra Linux are made in Russia and have software support from Russia. It's a question of ethics if American distros and the Linux kernel as a whole should be distributed to countries that are waging war. GalaxyDoge72 (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Obviously 'it's a question of ethics' does not counter their argument. However the linux kernel is not banned in Russia. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 04:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

That is not true, the Linux kernel is available in Russia. There has been no ban for Russian users. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 04:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Software projects are not required to accept or consider contributions from any group of people (or anyone at all) to be considered free and open-source. The criteria for FOSS focus on what users are allowed to do with the software and its source code. — Newslinger talk 08:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)