Trang chủ » blog » Free and open-source software – Wikipedia

Free and open-source software – Wikipedia

Software whose beginning code is available and which is permissively license
Free and open-source software ( FOSS ) is software that is both barren software and open-source software [ a ] where anyone is freely licensed to use, copy, analyze, and change the software in any way, and the beginning code is openly shared thus that people are encouraged to voluntarily improve the design of the software. [ 3 ] This is in contrast to proprietary software, where the software is under restrictive copyright license and the reference code is normally hidden from the users. FOSS maintains the software exploiter ‘s civil liberty rights ( see the Four Essential Freedoms, below ). other benefits of using FOSS can include decreased software costs, increase security system and stability ( specially in esteem to malware ), protecting privacy, education, and giving users more control over their own hardware. free and open-source operating systems such as Linux and descendants of BSD are widely utilize nowadays, powering millions of servers, desktops, smartphones ( for example, Android ), and other devices. Free-software licenses and open-source licenses are used by many software packages. The free software movement and the open-source software campaign are on-line sociable movements behind far-flung production and adoption of FOSS, with the former choose to use the terms FLOSS or free/libre.

overview [edit ]

“ free and open-source software ” ( FOSS ) is an umbrella term for software that is simultaneously considered both free software and open-source software. FOSS ( free and open-source software ) allows the exploiter to inspect the reservoir code and provides a eminent level of control of the software ‘s functions compared to proprietary software. The condition “ free software ” does not refer to the monetary cost of the software at all, but rather whether the license maintains the software drug user ‘s civil liberties ( “ absolve ” as in “ free actor’s line, ” not as in “ rid beer ” ). [ 3 ] There are a number of refer terms and abbreviations for spare and open-source software ( FOSS or F/OSS ), or free/libre and open-source software ( FLOSS or F/LOSS is preferred by FSF over FOSS, while rid or free/libre is their prefer term ). [ 6 ] Although there is about a complete overlap between free-software licenses and open-source-software licenses, there is a strong philosophical discrepancy between the advocates of these two positions. The terminology of FOSS or “ free and open-source software ” was created to be a impersonal on these philosophic disagreements between the FSF and OSI and have a single unite terminus that could refer to both concepts. [ 7 ]

release software [edit ]

Richard Stallman ‘s Free Software Definition, adopted by the Free Software Foundation ( FSF ), defines complimentary software as a topic of liberty not price, [ 8 ] [ 9 ] and it upholds the Four Essential Freedoms. The earliest-known publication of the definition of his free-software theme was in the February 1986 version [ 10 ] of the FSF ‘s now-discontinued GNU ‘s Bulletin publication. The canonic source for the document is in the doctrine section of the GNU Project web site. As of August 2017, it is published in 40 languages. [ 11 ]

Four all-important freedoms of Free Software [edit ]

To meet the definition of “ rid software ”, the FSF requires the software ‘s license deference the civil liberties / human rights of what the FSF calls the software drug user ‘s “ Four Essential Freedoms “. [ 12 ]

  • 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.[12]

Open source [edit ]

The Open Source Definition is used by the Open Source Initiative ( OSI ) to determine whether a software license qualifies for the constitution ‘s insignia for open-source software. The definition was based on the Debian Free Software Guidelines, written and adapted primarily by Bruce Perens. [ 13 ] [ 14 ] Perens did not base his writing on the Four Essential Freedoms of free software from the Free Software Foundation, which were only former available on the web. [ 15 ] 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 loose software. [ 16 ] In the take after 2000s, he spoke about open informant again. [ 17 ] [ 18 ]

history [edit ]

From the 1950s and on through the 1980s, it was coarse for computer users to have the beginning code for all programs they used, and the license and ability to modify it for their own manipulation. Software, including source code, was normally shared by individuals who used computers, much as public sphere software [ 19 ] ( Note that FOSS is not the lapp as public domain software, as public sphere software does not contain copyrights [ 20 ] ). Most companies had a business model based on hardware sales, and provided or bundled software with hardware, free of accusation. [ 21 ] By the late 1960s, the prevail business model around software was changing. A growing and evolving software industry was competing with the hardware manufacturer ‘s bundled software products ; rather than funding software exploitation from hardware gross, these raw companies were selling software directly. Leased machines required software support while providing no tax income for software, and some customers who were able to better meet their own needs did not want the costs of software bundled with hardware product costs. In United States vs. IBM, filed January 17, 1969, the government charged that bundled software was anticompetitive. While some software was still being provided without monetary price and license restriction, there was a growing sum of software that was merely at a monetary monetary value with restricted license. In the 1970s and early 1980s, some parts of the software industry began using technical measures ( such as distributing entirely binary copies of computer programs ) to prevent computer users from being able to use change by reversal mastermind techniques to study and customize software they had paid for. In 1980, the copyright police was extended to calculator programs in the United States [ 23 ] —previously, calculator programs could be considered ideas, procedures, methods, systems, and processes, which are not copyrightable. [ 24 ] early on, closed-source software was rare until the mid-1970s to the 1980s, when IBM implemented in 1983 an “ object code only ” policy, nobelium longer distributing source code. [ 26 ] [ 27 ] [ 28 ] In 1983, Richard Stallman, longtime penis of the hacker community at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, announced the GNU project, saying that he had become frustrated with the effects of the change in polish of the computer industry and its users. Software development for the GNU operating system began in January 1984, and the Free Software Foundation ( FSF ) was founded in October 1985. An article outlining the project and its goals was published in March 1985 titled the GNU Manifesto. The manifesto included significant explanation of the GNU doctrine, Free Software Definition and “ copyleft “ ideas. The FSF takes the position that the cardinal issue Free software addresses is an ethical one—to ensure software users can exercise what it calls “ The Four Essential Freedoms “. [ 3 ] The Linux kernel, created by Linus Torvalds, was released as freely modifiable informant code in 1991. initially, Linux was not released under either a release software or an open-source software license. however, with version 0.12 in February 1992, he relicensed the project under the GNU General Public License. [ 30 ] FreeBSD and NetBSD ( both derived from 386BSD ) were released as Free software when the USL v. BSDi lawsuit was settled out of court in 1993. OpenBSD forked from NetBSD in 1995. besides in 1995, The Apache HTTP Server, normally referred to as Apache, was released under the Apache License 1.0. In 1997, Eric Raymond published The Cathedral and the Bazaar, a reflective analysis of the hacker residential district and Free software principles. The newspaper received meaning attention in early 1998, and was one factor in motivating Netscape Communications Corporation to release their popular Netscape Communicator Internet cortege as free software. This code is today well known as Mozilla Firefox and Thunderbird. Netscape ‘s act prompted Raymond and others to look into how to bring the FSF ‘s Free software ideas and perceived benefits to the commercial software industry. They concluded that FSF ‘s social activism was not appealing to companies like Netscape, and looked for a way to rebrand the Free software bowel movement to emphasize the business likely of sharing and collaborating on software source code. The fresh appoint they chose was “ open-source ”, and promptly Bruce Perens, publisher Tim O’Reilly, Linus Torvalds, and others signed on to the rebranding. The Open Source Initiative was founded in February 1998 to encourage the habit of the new term and evangelize open-source principles. [ 31 ] While the Open Source Initiative sought to encourage the use of the new terminus and evangelize the principles it adhered to, commercial software vendors found themselves increasingly threatened by the concept of freely distributed software and universal access to an application ‘s source code. A Microsoft executive publicly stated in 2001 that “ Open-source is an intellectual property destroyer. I ca n’t imagine something that could be worse than this for the software business and the intellectual-property business. ” This view absolutely summarizes the initial reaction to FOSS by some software corporations. [ citation needed ] For many years FOSS played a recess role outside of the mainstream of private software growth. however the success of FOSS Operating Systems such as Linux, BSD and the companies based on FOSS such as Red Hat, has changed the software diligence ‘s attitude and there has been a dramatic chemise in the corporate philosophy concerning its development .

custom [edit ]

FOSS benefits over proprietorship software [edit ]

personal restraint, customizability and exemption [edit ]

Users of FOSS benefit from the Four Essential Freedoms to make unexclusive use of, and to study, copy, change, and redistribute such software with or without change. 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 cause model and its early users − even push or request such changes to be made via updates to the original software. [ 34 ] [ 35 ] [ 36 ] [ 37 ] [ 38 ]

privacy and security [edit ]

Manufacturers of proprietary, closed-source software are sometimes pressured to building in backdoors or other covert, undesired features into their software. [ 39 ] [ 40 ] [ 41 ] [ 42 ] alternatively of having to trust software vendors, users of FOSS can inspect and verify the informant code themselves and can put trust on a residential district of volunteers and users. [ 38 ] As proprietorship code is typically hide from public view, only the vendors themselves and hackers may be aware of any vulnerabilities in them [ 38 ] while FOSS involves as many people as potential for exposing bugs cursorily. [ 43 ] [ 44 ]

low costs or no costs [edit ]

FOSS is much absolve of commission although donations are often encouraged. This besides allows users to better quiz and compare software. [ 38 ]

quality, collaboration and efficiency [edit ]

FOSS allows for better collaboration among assorted parties and individuals with the finish of developing the most efficient software for its users or use-cases while proprietary software is typically mean to generate profits. furthermore, in many cases more organizations and individuals contribute to such projects than to proprietary software. [ 38 ] It has been shown that technical superiority is typically the elementary reason why companies choose overt informant software. [ 38 ]

Drawbacks compared to proprietary software [edit ]

security and user-support [edit ]

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 cursorily. however, this does not guarantee a high tied of participation. Having a grouping of full-time professionals behind a commercial product can in some cases be superscript to FOSS. [ 38 ] [ 43 ] [ 45 ]

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 overrule engineering of proprietorship code is a hindrance of significance for malicious hackers. [ 43 ]

Hardware and software compatibility [edit ]

sometimes, FOSS is not compatible with proprietary hardware or particular 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 case as they wish customers to run only their own proprietary software or as they might benefit from partnerships. [ 46 ] [ 47 ] [ 48 ] [ 49 ] [ 50 ] [ 51 ] [ 52 ]

Bugs and missing features [edit ]

While FOSS can be superscript to proprietorship equivalents in terms of software features and stability, in many cases FOSS has more nebulous bugs and missing features when compared to alike commercial software. [ 53 ] [ additional citation(s) needed ] This varies per character and normally depends on the level of concern and engagement in a FOSS project. Furthermore, unlike with distinctive commercial software, missing features and bugfixes can be implemented by any party that has the relevant motivation, time and skill to do then. [ 45 ] [ additional citation(s) needed ]

Less undertake of development [edit ]

There is frequently less certainty of FOSS projects gaining the compulsory resources and engagement for continued development than commercial software backed by companies. [ 54 ] [ additional citation(s) needed ] however, companies besides frequently abolish projects for being unprofitable, so far large companies may rely on, and therefore co-develop, open source software. [ 44 ] On the other bridge player, if the seller of proprietary software ceases exploitation, there are no alternatives ; whereas with FOSS, any drug user who needs it calm has the right, and the source-code, to continue to develop it themself, or pay a 3rd party to do sol .

Missing applications [edit ]

As the FOSS operate system distributions of Linux has a lower commercialize contribution of end users there are besides fewer applications available. [ 55 ] [ 56 ]

adoption by governments [edit ]

adoption by supranational unions and external organizations [edit ]

“ We migrated key functions from Windows to Linux because we needed an operate arrangement that was static and dependable — one that would give us in-house operate. therefore if we needed to patch, adjust, or adjust, we could. ”

official statement of the United Space Alliance, which manages the computer systems for the International Space Station ( ISS ), regarding why they chose to switch from Windows to Linux on the ISS .
In 2017, the european Commission stated that “ EU institutions should become open source software users themselves, evening more than they already are ” and listed open source software as one of the nine key drivers of initiation, together with big data, mobility, cloud computer science and the internet of things. [ 87 ]

production [edit ]

Issues and incidents [edit ]

GPLv3 controversy [edit ]

While copyright is the primary legal mechanism that FOSS authors use to ensure license conformity for their software, early mechanisms such as legislation, patents, and trademarks have implications arsenic well. In response to legal issues with patents and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ( DMCA ), the Free Software Foundation released translation 3 of its GNU Public License ( GNU GPLv3 ) in 2007 that explicitly addressed the DMCA and apparent rights. After the development of the GNU GPLv3 in 2007, the FSF ( as the copyright holder of many pieces of the GNU arrangement ) updated many [ citation needed ] of the GNU programs ‘ licenses from GPLv2 to GPLv3. On the early hand, the adoption of the new GPL version was heavily discussed in the FOSS ecosystem, [ 88 ] several projects decided against upgrade. For case the Linux kernel, [ 89 ] [ 90 ] the BusyBox [ 91 ] [ 92 ] visualize, AdvFS, [ 93 ] Blender, [ 94 ] and the VLC media musician decided against adopting the GPLv3. [ 95 ] Apple, a user of GCC and a heavy drug user of both DRM and patents, switched the compiler in its Xcode IDE from GCC to Clang, which is another FOSS compiler but is under a permissive license. [ 97 ] LWN speculated that Apple was motivated partially by a desire to avoid GPLv3. The Samba project besides switched to GPLv3, then Apple replaced Samba in their software suite by a closed-source, proprietary software alternative .

Skewed prioritization, ineffectiveness and egoism of developers [edit ]

Leemhuis criticizes the prioritization of skilled developers who − rather of fixing issues in already popular open-source applications and background environments − create new, by and large excess software to gain fame and luck. [ 99 ] He besides criticizes notebook manufacturers for optimizing their own products only privately or creating workarounds alternatively of helping fix the actual causes of the many issues with Linux on notebooks such as the unnecessary power consumption. [ 99 ]

commercial ownership of open-source software [edit ]

Mergers have affected major open-source software. Sun Microsystems ( Sun ) acquired MySQL AB, owner of the popular open-source MySQL database, in 2008. [ 100 ] prophet in become purchased Sun in January 2010, acquiring their copyrights, patents, and trademarks. frankincense, Oracle became the owner of both the most popular proprietorship 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. partially in reception to uncertainty about the future of MySQL, the FOSS community forked the project into new database systems outside of Oracle ‘s operate. These include MariaDB, Percona, and Drizzle. All of these have clear-cut names ; they are discrete projects and can not use the brand name MySQL .

legal cases [edit ]

Oracle v. Google [edit ]

In August 2010, Oracle sued Google, claiming that its consumption 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 minor count of copy files, but the parties stipulated that Google would pay no damages. Oracle appealed to the Federal Circuit, and Google filed a cross-appeal on the misprint replicate claim .

As part/driver of a new socio-economic model [edit ]

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 denationalization in general. [ 106 ] [ 107 ] By realizing the historic potential of an “ economy of abundance “ for the new digital earth FOSS may lay down a plan for political resistance or show the way towards a electric potential transformation of capitalism. [ 107 ] 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 separate of a new economy of commons-based peer production of information, cognition, and culture. As examples, he cites a variety show of FOSS projects, including both spare software and open-source .

See besides [edit ]

Notes [edit ]

  1. ^Free refers to the users’ freedom to copy and re-use the software. The “The Free Software Definition”. .) 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. FOSS is a term that can be used without particular bias towards either political approach. FOSS is an inclusive condition that covers both exempt software and open-source software, which despite describing like development models, have differing cultures and philosophical backgrounds.refers to the users ‘ exemption to copy and re-use the software. The Free Software Foundation, an arrangement that advocates the barren software mannequin, suggests that to understand the concept, one should “ think of rid as in dislodge lecture, not as in dislodge beer ”. ( See ) Free software focuses on the fundamental freedoms it gives to users, whereas open generator software focuses on the perceive strengths of its peer-to-peer exploitation model. FOSS is a term that can be used without particular bias towards either political approach .

References [edit ]

Sources [edit ]

far reading [edit ]

source :
Category : Economy

Post navigation

Leave a Comment

Trả lời

Email của bạn sẽ không được hiển thị công khai.