Fast document oriented javascript in-memory database. Pourquoi c'est sans risque? A simple jQuery plugin for picking provinces, cities and districts of China. Internally it has two Modules that can be used indepently. Google Web Starter Kit: Internal circuit -datain and dataout buses.
Client-side growl-like notifications with actions and auto-retry. Customize scrollbar in modern browsers with smooth scrolling experience. Retrieved July 23, Some open-source projects do not take contributed code under a license, but actually require joint assignment of the author's copyright in order to accept code contributions into the project. Les utilisateurs d'internet ne sont pas que de beaux parleurs. There is now also a separate FP compare unit. Publiez vos bouts de code!
For details and documentation, please visit http: Easily mit a function when you scroll to an element. Le nu, license MAL. A fixed header that will animate its size on license. Si je publie l'adresse email zlib d'un journaliste, mais sans son bitcoinje me fais jeter aussi? En prime, il est graphiquement au top.
Some open-source projects do not take contributed code under a license, but actually require joint assignment of the author's copyright in order to accept code contributions into the project. The proliferation of open-source licenses is a negative aspect of the open-source movement because it is often difficult to understand the legal implications of the differences between licenses.
With more than , open-source projects available and more than unique licenses, the complexity of deciding how to manage open-source use within "closed-source" commercial enterprises has dramatically increased. In view of this, open-source practitioners are starting to use classification schemes in which FOSS licenses are grouped typically based on the existence and obligations imposed by the copyleft provision; the strength of the copyleft provision.
As a result, if end-users violate the licensing conditions, their license disappears, meaning they are infringing copyright.
Certification can help to build user confidence. Certification could be applied to the simplest component, to a whole software system.
This project aims to build a desktop interface that every end-user is able to understand and interact with, thus crossing the language and cultural barriers. The project would improve developing nations' access to information systems.
Raymond suggests a model for developing OSS known as the bazaar model. Raymond likens the development of software by traditional methodologies to building a cathedral, "carefully crafted by individual wizards or small bands of mages working in splendid isolation".
In the traditional model of development, which he called the cathedral model, development takes place in a centralized way. Roles are clearly defined.
Roles include people dedicated to designing the architects , people responsible for managing the project, and people responsible for implementation. Traditional software engineering follows the cathedral model. The bazaar model, however, is different. In this model, roles are not clearly defined. Gregorio Robles [42] suggests that software developed using the bazaar model should exhibit the following patterns:.
Data suggests, however, that OSS is not quite as democratic as the bazaar model suggests. The average number of authors involved in a project was 5. Open source software is usually easier to obtain than proprietary software, often resulting in increased use. Additionally, the availability of an open source implementation of a standard can increase adoption of that standard. Moreover, lower costs of marketing and logistical services are needed for OSS. OSS also helps companies keep abreast of technology developments.
It is a good tool to promote a company's image, including its commercial products. Open source development offers the potential for a more flexible technology and quicker innovation. It is said to be more reliable since it typically has thousands of independent programmers testing and fixing bugs of the software.
Open source is not dependent on the company or author that originally created it. Even if the company fails, the code continues to exist and be developed by its users. Also, it uses open standards accessible to everyone; thus, it does not have the problem of incompatible formats that exist in proprietary software.
It is flexible because modular systems allow programmers to build custom interfaces, or add new abilities to it and it is innovative since open source programs are the product of collaboration among a large number of different programmers. The mix of divergent perspectives, corporate objectives, and personal goals speeds up innovation. Moreover, free software can be developed in accord with purely technical requirements.
It does not require thinking about commercial pressure that often degrades the quality of the software. Commercial pressures make traditional software developers pay more attention to customers' requirements than to security requirements, since such features are somewhat invisible to the customer. It is sometimes said that the open source development process may not be well defined and the stages in the development process, such as system testing and documentation may be ignored.
However this is only true for small mostly single programmer projects. Larger, successful projects do define and enforce at least some rules as they need them to make the teamwork possible. Consequently, only technical requirements may be satisfied and not the ones of the market.
It depends on control mechanisms in order to create effective performance of autonomous agents who participate in virtual organizations. In OSS development, tools are used to support the development of the product and the development process itself. Revision control systems such as Concurrent Versions System CVS and later Subversion SVN and Git are examples of tools, often themselves open source, help manage the source code files and the changes to those files for a software project.
Open source projects are often loosely organized with "little formalised process modelling or support", but utilities such as issue trackers are often used to organize open source software development. Tools such as mailing lists and IRC provide means of coordination among developers.
New organizations tend to have a more sophisticated governance model and their membership is often formed by legal entity members. Open Source Software Institute is a membership-based, non-profit c 6 organization established in that promotes the development and implementation of open source software solutions within US Federal, state and local government agencies.
OSSI's efforts have focused on promoting adoption of open source software programs and policies within Federal Government and Defense and Homeland Security communities.
Open Source for America is a group created to raise awareness in the United States Federal Government about the benefits of open source software. Their stated goals are to encourage the government's use of open source software, participation in open source software projects, and incorporation of open source community dynamics to increase government transparency.
Open-source software is widely used both as independent applications and as components in non-open-source applications. They are willing to pay for the legal protection e. The debate over open source vs.
The top four reasons as provided by Open Source Business Conference survey [64] individuals or organizations choose open source software are:. Since innovative companies no longer rely heavily on software sales, proprietary software has become less of a necessity. Further, companies like Novell who traditionally sold software the old-fashioned way continually debate the benefits of switching to open source availability, having already switched part of the product offering to open source code.
With this market shift, more critical systems are beginning to rely on open source offerings, [69] allowing greater funding such as US Department of Homeland Security grants [69] to help "hunt for security bugs.
Proprietary source distributors have started to develop and contribute to the open source community due to the market share shift, doing so by the need to reinvent their models in order to remain competitive. Many advocates argue that open source software is inherently safer because any person can view, edit, and change code.
According to the Free software movement 's leader, Richard Stallman , the main difference is that by choosing one term over the other i. The FSF [74] said that the term "open source" fosters an ambiguity of a different kind such that it confuses the mere availability of the source with the freedom to use, modify, and redistribute it.
On the other hand, the "free software" term was criticized for the ambiguity of the word "free" as "available at no cost", which was seen as discouraging for business adoption, [75] and for the historical ambiguous usage of the term. The term "open source" was originally intended to be trademarkable; however, the term was deemed too descriptive, so no trademark exists. OSI Certified is a trademark licensed only to people who are distributing software licensed under a license listed on the Open Source Initiative's list.
Although the OSI definition of "open source software" is widely accepted, a small number of people and organizations use the term to refer to software where the source is available for viewing, but which may not legally be modified or redistributed. Such software is more often referred to as source-available , or as shared source , a term coined by Microsoft in Another example was Scilab prior to version 5, which called itself "the open source platform for numerical computation" [89] but had a license [90] that forbade commercial redistribution of modified versions.
Before changing the license of software, distributors usually audit the source code for third party licensed code which they would have to remove or obtain permission for its relicense. Backdoors and other malware should also be removed as they may easily be discovered after release of the code.
Open source software projects are built and maintained by a network of volunteer programmers and are widely used in free as well as commercial products. While the term "open source" applied originally only to the source code of software, [97] it is now being applied to many other areas [98] such as Open source ecology , [99] a movement to decentralize technologies so that any human can use them.
However, it is often misapplied to other areas which have different and competing principles, which overlap only partially. The same principles that underlie open source software can be found in many other ventures, such as open-source hardware , Wikipedia , and open-access publishing. Collectively, these principles are known as open source , open content , and open collaboration: This "culture" or ideology takes the view that the principles apply more generally to facilitate concurrent input of different agendas, approaches and priorities, in contrast with more centralized models of development such as those typically used in commercial companies.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Redirected from Open source software. For a broader coverage related to this topic, see Open-source software movement. Open-source software shares similarities with Free Software and is now part of the broader term Free and open-source software. History of free and open source software. Open-source software development model. Business models for open-source software. Comparison of open source and closed source. Alternative terms for free software.
Comparison of free and open-source software licenses. So if we needed to patch, adjust, or adapt, we could. List of free and open-source software packages. Open content and Open collaboration. Free software Free software community Free software movement List of open source software packages Open-content Open source advocacy Open source hardware Open Source Initiative Open Source Software Institute Open source software security Open source video games Shared source Timeline of open source software User-generated content.
Retrieved 25 August Archived from the original on 8 September Retrieved 8 September Archived from the original on 18 January Review of Network Economics. But the problem went deeper than that. The word "free" carried with it an inescapable moral connotation: Those were merely pleasant side effects of a motive that was, at its root, neither technical nor mercantile, but moral.
Furthermore, the "free as in freedom" position forced a glaring inconsistency on corporations who wanted to support particular free programs in one aspect of their business, but continue marketing proprietary software in others.
Charny 3 May Free and Open Source Software. IT Professional 12 6 November , pg. The problem with it is twofold.
Second, the term makes a lot of corporate types nervous. Duke University press - durham and london. Prior to , Free Software referred either to the Free Software Foundation and the watchful, micromanaging eye of Stallman or to one of thousands of different commercial, avocational, or university-research projects, processes, licenses, and ideologies that had a variety of names: The term Open Source, by contrast, sought to encompass them all in one movement.
Public-domain software is written by microcomputer hobbyists also known as "hackers" many of whom are professional programmers in their work life. After the Netscape announcement broke in January I did a lot of thinking about the next phase -- the serious push to get "free software" accepted in the mainstream corporate world.
And I realized we have a serious problem with "free software" itself. Specifically, we have a problem with the term "free software", itself, not the concept. Patents in software do not protect the code, but rather are independent from the code. Patent infringement is about strict liability. Patents are far more valuable for software than copyrights, but by taking open source code you might be compromising your patent rights. Of course, those who would cut and paste copy are the ones you would most like to prevent, but might not be able to if your software has open source code.
Those who are engaged in software development and had never considered the consequences of open source code winding up in their software need to act immediately to investigate what is going on with development because if experience teaches anything it is that those who code will seek to cut corners. To some extent, who can blame them? Why recreate the wheel? You do recreate the wheel when you want proprietary rights because the inclusion of anything allegedly free is going to come with strings attached — I guarantee it!
Many times you will hire an independent contractor or engage the services of a developer through a company. These developers are tasked with bringing into being your creation, and in many if not most cases they are going to want to not have to do all the coding from scratch. Sometimes it will be because of your requirements to stay with in a budget, and sometimes it will be because of their own limitations or their desire to turn projects around extremely quickly to maximize profits.
So they take knowing full well what they are taking comes with strings attached, but it lets them finish their project and get paid. You need to make sure that those who are coding, whether they are employees or independent contractor developers are not using open source software, and if they are that you know exactly what the license is that you will have agreed do when your software embodying copied code is implemented.
Failure to know what has gone into your software in terms of code can be a costly oversight, and one that you might not later be able to fix in any satisfying way. He consults with attorneys facing peculiar procedural issues at the Patent Office, advises investors and executives on patent law changes and pending litigation matters, and works with start-up businesses throughout the United States and around the world, primarily dealing with software and computer related innovations.
The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog. Would be nice to hear your thoughts on the different licenses out there; GPL vs.
Anyway, it might make for an interesting article if you were so inclined…. Good write up on how to use open source software. Patents have not proven to spread innovation infact it is the other way round. Patents are a tool of trade and have nothing to do with technology. Patents are something that keeps cash flowing for lawyers and trolls.
In many companies developers have this contest, who can get the goofiest patent through the system. That means it was valuable and advanced the science. Of course, understanding what the license entails is important, and thee are many different considerations. No copyleft means that you probably have little obligation other than to give the original author credit and include a copy of the license for the original work.
A common example is libvorbis, a library for the vorbis audio format, which is widely used in games and embedded devices. Weak copyleft various somewhat, but generally means that you must contribute back your changes to the original file s , but not to code that is linked. An example of this would be LAME, which is a widely used mp3 codec.
Strong copyleft means that you must contribute back changes to the original code and that linked code must be under the same licenses. The Linux kernel is probably the most prominent example of this one. Sometimes licenses have something called an advertising clause, like the one found in the original BSD license.
The language varies, but it generally means that if you advertise a product, you must note in that advertisement that it contains code from a certain party. Some projects have multiple licenses, including proprietary licenses often used for exceptions.
Choosing this license may mean that you have to pay licensing fees, although it may not. As you mentioned, FOSS licenses often have patent clauses, and if you are using the code, you should be sure that you find the terms appropriate, just as you should be sure to find the other terms appropriate. The AGPL has some restrictions in software-as-a-service scenarios.
Given the terms, you can decide whether or not it is appropriate for you. If you primary product is proprietary software, then you may be less inclined to do so, but then again, you may find that shifting your product to FOSS provides you a better return on investment. Your analysis of the license you quote from is wrong.
Your analysis of the implied patent license is also wrong. I disagree with you and your analysis. I note that you are so sure of your analysis that you choose to remain anonymous and use a fake e-mail, but I suppose that is to be expected. Just wondering if you might be willing to indemnify my client if he were to assume your analysis is correct and he winds up losing his rights? Of course not, silly question, because you know as well as I do that the license is not permissive but mandatory.
There would be no need to say ANYTHING if it were permissive because everyone obviously has the right to allow others to engage in such activity at their own discretion. So there is only need to make such a statement that persons to whom the software is distributed be given the same right to modify, copy, distribute etc.
Of course, my analysis is correct. I did acknowledge that there would be some that disagree because the license is ambiguous. For that reason it could be interpreted to mean any number of things, but the most logical conclusion is what I state because there is not a single word or phrase that implies the terms are permissive, but the fact that rights are given only to the extent that others are allowed to copy, modify, distribute, etc.
It is a lawyers job to counsel clients objectively and to encourage them to minimize risks, particularly when the risks are extreme. Nothing could be more extreme than the forfeiture of the ability to enforce exclusive rights. So you can choose to be a risk-taker if you want and disregard the clear importance of the license, but that is not wise. Gene, The license in question is the MIT or X11 license, which is not copyleft, and only has the requirement of including the notice with copies or derivatives.
It is not completely permissive because it requires attribution and a copy of the notice, but about the only licenses that are more permissive are the zlib license and the WTFPL. Everything you can legally do with software is granted by the license or fair use and such. See how that flies in the Courts. Client builds and sells a device that includes software that is a derivative work of software covered by a particular open source license.
Client obtains a patent on the novel features they added to the derivative work. Client sues someone for patent infringement who is duplicating and selling counterfeit versions of his device.
For an actual example of this, see the Apache 2. Another example is paragraph 1 of Section 8 of the GPL v3, which states that an attempt to propagate a work except as expressly provided in the license which restricts your ability to fail to license downstream recipients automatically terminates your rights under the license.
There is a lot of general fashionable muck throwing at open source in this article resulting in lack of clarity in the argument and the key points being poorly made. The main argument which also applies to any project that includes software is that you need to check the terms and conditions of all software components used in your project, to ensure they are compatible with your intentions.
However, the above are largely commercial considerations which I suggest are slightly different to patentability. Lets take the worst case scenario? This is an important point as previously it has been suggested that the open source movement makes use of patents to protect open source inventions. Finally, I agree with the final point that both software development teams and their commissioning customers need to improve their awareness of the commercial ramifications of the differing ways in which software can be developed.
That, however, is a you issue not one of lack of clarity on my part. Sorry that facts got in the way of what you would have preferred to read. Roland writes in small part: There would be no permissive or any other type of license, just the profitable use of their innovations without their permission.
The open source thing just seems to be a way for software developers to completely avoid the whole concept of patent rights, since they seem to be mostly pretty adamant about denying the intrinsic value of patent rights. Since patents and the rights they confer have been Very successful for more than years, I would submit that many software developers might go the way of many extinct creatures like Do Do birds or Pterodactyls, for instance.
Fun while it lasted though, dontcha think? This includes doing research that when passed on, a client can seek the legal knowledge to avoid litigation in the future. As for copyright, and licenses based upon it — I offer: Gene It isnt that people wanted to read GPL here but your article is poorly written and on top that you are saying that reader is unable to understand. If reader s is unable to understand what you meant, then you need to work on your writing skills and blame the reader s.
Stan Patents have not proven to be successful. Though in capitalist world every thing is measured with money and patents get you money but patents no way help in progress of technology. You are free to pick any field where patents are allowed and study it for a period of years. You will notice that the rapid technological developments took place after patents in the filed expired. If USPTO is going to grant patents on ubiquitous things like one click purchase or battery indicator on mobile phone, how you expect the world to trust the technological capabilities of USPTO?
I have worked in companies that had software patents and a huge bunch of them. How we used to get those patents? Think of the goofiest idea, talk to company attorney, word it as broad as possible and file it. Out of several patent applications I had been associated with, till date I have found only 2 applications that were actual innovation. The second mis-conception about patent is that patent is means you have control. The whole patent thing and illusion of monetary value associated with patent is a facade.
A patent is useless unless you enforce it. To enforce a patent you need lawyers not technologist, where as a patent claims to be technological innovation what an irony.
You need to pay huge amount of money to lawyers to fight the patent case in court. That is why most patent deals do not go for a court trial. They are mostly settled out of court and majority of patent deals are cross licencing. You use your innovation and I use your innovation but we will keep rest of the world out of it. Patents are not technological innovations but sort of currency for barter in trade. My particular take on open source is that, like standards, it is here to stay.
However, we are still learning: The article seemed to treat all open source software as being the same, a point of view re-inforced by the last three paragraphs. However, as any one who has to deal regularly with open source will know there are many different open source licenses out there. Hence in my opinion this hand waving generally at open source weakened the points being made.
Copyright is a basic right in the U. These freedoms, have been a backbone now for almost 20 years. The source of the case I mentioned on post 15, can be found here: The site is full of information that covers the Departments of the United States Government using or going to use Open Source.
It also has within that information pdf the views and considerations taken on the use of Open Source. It is worth reading. OSS is about organisation, cooperation, and this is an extensive membership of people business and Governments. The clause in the article was the entirety of the copyright license, so that is in and of itself a huge problem because many things are not answered.
In terms of derivative works, I am unsure how you could miss the fact that it covers derivative works. A derivative work is a work based on or derived from one or more already existing works. Thus, when those terms must be included in the resulting work anyone would have the right to create a derivative work of whatever is created. I figured given that you came out swinging at me and criticized my article you would have at least passing familiarity with the issues involved.
The point of the article is crystal clear. I am sorry you missed the point, which was that open source comes with strings attached. ALL open sources comes with strings attached.
So it is wholly appropriate to lump ALL open source together to teach that lesson. I think as a general rule it is perfectly accurate to say that if you want complete proprietary rights you cannot and should not employ open source software. On top of that, many businesses have come to the conclusion that understanding the numerous and evolving open source license terms is too onerous and makes clearing software really untenable for those seeking proprietary rights, so it is avoided.
Please Roland, lets keep the discussion real and intellectually honest if at all possible. What does my using WordPress have to do with anything? You are trying an offensive debating trick by introducing a head-fake that is unrelated. I have ALWAYS written that if people want to give software away for free then they should expect others to use it for free.
What is lacking is an understanding of the patent system, as demonstrated by your comment above to Stan. Your comments about how the USPTO works confirms you know little or nothing about the patent process. I will tell you exactly what I told a student once upon a time. The student told me that it was my job to make sure she understood the material.
Writing is about knowing who your audience is and writing to that audience. I write different articles for different audiences. The intended audience obviously is far more sophisticated than you. A teacher is respected because he can even teach an idiot. When you are writing for general public you have to send a clear message. Saying later that I am mis-quoted is an excuse. Please point one example where Free software has been prevented from being used freely? It is all about attribution.
Most closed source companies use the work from free software and do not give credit to the developer. Over and above this, they sell it as there achievements. This is exploitation and free software licenses try to control this. But people with only money as the only measure for everything, fail to understand.
So much for the self-imposed exile. Must be the Kool-Aid. Have a glass on me. Please read my reply there again. I think we are in violent agreement that open source comes with strings attached, I however also noted that from my experience closed source also comes with strings attached, but then because an organisation has purchased it , so has come through the front door, they are typically more aware of the attached strings, whereas as you point out open source tends to arrive by the back door.