This is an accepted version of this page
Free and open-source software (FOSS) issoftware available under alicense that grants users the right to use, modify, and distribute the software – modified or not – to everyone free of charge. FOSS is an inclusiveumbrella term encompassingfree software andopen-source software.[a][1] The rights guaranteed by FOSS originate from the "Four Essential Freedoms" ofThe Free Software Definition and the criteria ofThe Open Source Definition.[4][6] All FOSS must have publicly availablesource code, but not allsource-available software is FOSS. FOSS is the opposite ofproprietary software, which is licensed restrictively or has undisclosed source code.[4]
The historical precursor to FOSS was the hobbyist and academicpublic domain software ecosystem of the 1960s to 1980s. Free and open-source operating systems such asLinux distributions and descendants ofBSD are widely used, powering millions ofservers,desktops,smartphones, and other devices.[9][10]Free-software licenses andopen-source licenses have been adopted bymany software packages. Reasons for using FOSS include decreased software costs, increasedsecurity againstmalware, stability,privacy, opportunities for educational usage, and giving users more control over their own hardware.
Thefree software movement and theopen-source software movement areonline social movements behind widespread production, adoption and promotion of FOSS, with the former preferring to use the equivalent termfree/libre and open-source software (FLOSS). FOSS is supported by a loosely associated movement of multiple organizations, foundations, communities and individuals who share basic philosophical perspectives and collaborate practically, but may diverge in detail questions.
"Free and open-source software" (FOSS) is anumbrella term for software that is consideredfree software and/oropen-source software.[1] The precise definition of the terms "free software" and "open-source software" applies them to any software distributed under terms that allow users to use, modify, and redistribute said software in any manner they see fit, without requiring that they pay the author(s) of the software aroyalty or fee for engaging in the listed activities.[11]
Although there is an almost complete overlap between free-software licenses and open-source-software licenses, there is a strong philosophical disagreement between the advocates of these two positions. The terminology of FOSS was created to be a neutral on these philosophical disagreements between theFree Software Foundation (FSF) andOpen Source Initiative (OSI) and have a single unified term that could refer to both concepts, although Richard Stallman argues that it fails to be neutral unlike the similar term; "Free/Libre and Open Source Software" (FLOSS).[12]
Richard Stallman'sThe Free Software Definition, adopted by the FSF, definesfree software as a matter of liberty, not price,[13][14] and that which upholds the Four Essential Freedoms. The earliest known publication of this definition of his free software definition was in the February 1986 edition[15] of the FSF's now-discontinued GNU's Bulletin publication. The canonical source for the document is in the philosophy section of theGNU Project website. As of August 2017[update], it is published in 40 languages.[16]
To meet the definition of "free software", the FSF requires the software's licensing respect the civil liberties / human rights of what the FSF calls the software user's "Four Essential Freedoms".[17]
The Open Source Definition is used by theOpen Source Initiative (OSI) to determine whether asoftware license qualifies for the organization's insignia foropen-source software. The definition was based on theDebian Free Software Guidelines, written and adapted primarily byBruce Perens.[18][19] Perens did not base his writing on the Four Essential Freedoms of free software from theFree Software Foundation, which were only later available on the web.[20] Perens subsequently stated that he feltEric Raymond's promotion of open-source unfairly overshadowed the Free Software Foundation's efforts and reaffirmed his support for free software.[21] In the following 2000s, he spoke about open source again.[22][23]
 | This sectionappears to contradict the articleHistory of free and open-source software. Please discuss at thetalk page and do not remove this message until the contradictions are resolved.(June 2015) |
From the 1950s and on through the 1980s, it was common for computer users to have the source code for all programs they used, and the permission and ability to modify it for their own use.Software, including source code, was commonly shared by individuals who used computers, often aspublic-domain software[24] (FOSS is not the same as public domain software, as public domain software is not limited by copyrights[25]). Most companies had a business model based onhardware sales, and provided orbundled software with hardware, free of charge.[26]
By the late 1960s, the prevailing 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 development from hardware revenue, these new companies were selling software directly. Leased machines required software support while providing no revenue 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. InUnited States vs.IBM, filed January 17, 1969, the government charged that bundled software was anticompetitive.[27] While some software was still being provided without monetary cost and license restriction, there was a growing amount of software that was only at a monetary cost with restricted licensing. In the 1970s and early 1980s, some parts of thesoftware industry began using technical measures (such as distributing onlybinary copies ofcomputer programs) to preventcomputer users from being able to usereverse engineering techniques to study and customize software they had paid for. In 1980, the copyright law was extended to computer programs in theUnited States[28]—previously, computer programs could be considered ideas, procedures, methods, systems, and processes, which are not copyrightable.[29][30]
Early on,closed-source software was uncommon until the mid-1970s to the 1980s, when IBM implemented in 1983 an "object code only" policy, no longer distributing source code.[31][32][33]
In 1983,Richard Stallman, longtime member of thehacker community at theMIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, announced theGNU project, saying that he had become frustrated with the effects of the change in culture of the computer industry and its users.[34] Software development for theGNU operating system began in January 1984, and theFree Software Foundation (FSF) was founded in October 1985. An article outlining the project and its goals was published in March 1985 titled theGNU Manifesto. The manifesto included significant explanation of the GNU philosophy,The Free Software Definition and "copyleft" ideas. The FSF takes the position that the fundamental issueFree software addresses is an ethical one—to ensure software users can exercise what it calls "The Four Essential Freedoms".[17]
TheLinux kernel, created byLinus Torvalds, was released as freely modifiable source code in 1991. Initially, Linux was not released under either a Free software or an Open-source software license. However, with version 0.12 in February 1992, herelicensed the project under theGNU General Public License.[35]
FreeBSD andNetBSD (both derived from386BSD) were released as Free software when theUSL v. BSDi lawsuit was settled out of court in 1993.OpenBSDforked from NetBSD in 1995. Also in 1995, TheApache HTTP Server, commonly referred to as Apache, was released under theApache License 1.0.
In 1997,Eric Raymond publishedThe Cathedral and the Bazaar, a reflective analysis of the hacker community and Free software principles. The paper received significant attention in early 1998, and was one factor in motivatingNetscape Communications Corporation to release their popularNetscape Communicator Internet suite asFree software. This code is today better known asMozilla Firefox andThunderbird.
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 movement to emphasize the business potential of sharing and collaborating on software source code. The new name they chose was "Open-source", and quicklyBruce Perens, publisherTim O'Reilly, Linus Torvalds, and others signed on to the rebranding. TheOpen Source Initiative was founded in February 1998 to encourage the use of the new term and evangelize open-source principles.[36]
While the Open Source Initiative sought to encourage the use of the new term 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'ssource code. AMicrosoft executive publicly stated in 2001 that "Open-source is an intellectual property destroyer. I can't imagine something that could be worse than this for the software business and the intellectual-property business."[37] Companies have indeed faced copyright infringement issues when embracing FOSS.[38] For many years FOSS played a niche role outside of the mainstream of private software development. However the success of FOSS Operating Systems such as Linux, BSD and the companies based on FOSS such asRed Hat, has changed the software industry's attitude and there has been a dramatic shift in the corporate philosophy concerning its development.[39]
Users of FOSS benefit from theFour Essential Freedoms to make unrestricted use of, and to study, copy, modify, and redistribute such software with or without modification. If they would like to change the functionality of software they can bring about changes to the code and, if they wish, distribute such modified versions of the software or often − depending on the software'sdecision making model and its other users − even push or request such changes to be made via updates to the original software.[40][41][42][43][44]
Manufacturers of proprietary, closed-source software are sometimes pressured to building inbackdoors or other covert, undesired features into their software.[45][46][47][48] Instead of having to trust software vendors, users of FOSS can inspect and verify the source code themselves and can put trust on a community of volunteers and users.[44] As proprietary code is typically hidden from public view, only the vendors themselves and hackers may be aware of anyvulnerabilities in them[44] while FOSS involves as many people as possible for exposing bugs quickly.[49][50]
FOSS is often free of charge although donations are often encouraged. This also allows users to better test and compare software.[44]
FOSS allows for better collaboration among various parties and individuals with the goal of developing the most efficient software for its users or use-cases while proprietary software is typicallymeant to generate profits. Furthermore, in many cases more organizations and individuals contribute to such projects than to proprietary software.[44] It has been shown that technical superiority is typically the primary reason why companies choose open source software.[44]
According toLinus's law the more people who can see and test a set of code, the more likely any flaws will be caught and fixed quickly. However, this does not guarantee a high level of participation. Having a grouping of full-time professionals behind a commercial product can in some cases be superior to FOSS.[44][49][51]
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 thanwhite hat hackers whichresponsibly disclose or help fix the vulnerabilities, that no code leaks orexfiltrations occur and thatreverse engineering of proprietary code is a hindrance of significance for malicious hackers.[49]
Sometimes, FOSS is not compatible with proprietary hardware or specific software. This is often due to manufacturers obstructing FOSS such as by not disclosing theinterfaces or other specifications needed for members of the FOSS movement to writedrivers for their hardware – for instance as they wish customers to run only their own proprietary software or as they might benefit from partnerships.[52][53][54][55][56][57][58]
While FOSS can be superior to proprietary equivalents in terms of software features and stability, in many cases it has more unfixed bugs and missing features when compared to similar commercial software.[59][additional citation(s) needed] This varies per case, and usually depends on the level of interest in a particular project. However, unlike close-sourced software, improvements can be made by anyone who has the motivation, time and skill to do so.[51][additional citation(s) needed]
A common obstacle in FOSS development is the lack of access to some common official standards, due to costlyroyalties or requirednon-disclosure agreements (e.g., for theDVD-Video format).[60]
There is often less certainty of FOSS projects gaining the required resources and participation for continued development than commercial software backed by companies.[61][additional citation(s) needed] However, companies also often abolish projects for being unprofitable, yet large companies may rely on, and hence co-develop, open source software.[50] On the other hand, if the vendor of proprietary software ceases development, there are no alternatives; whereas with FOSS, any user who needs it still has the right, and the source-code, to continue to develop it themself, or pay a 3rd party to do so.
As the FOSS operating system distributions ofLinux has a lowermarket share of end users there are also fewer applications available.[62][63]
 |
| Country | Description |
|---|---|
| Brazil | In 2006, theBrazilian government has simultaneously encouraged the distribution of cheap computers running Linux throughout its poorer communities by subsidizing their purchase with tax breaks.[64] |
| Ecuador | In April 2008,[65]Ecuador passed a similar law, Decree 1014, designed to migrate the public sector to Libre Software.[66] |
| France | In March 2009, theFrench Gendarmerie Nationale announced it will totally switch toUbuntu by 2015. The Gendarmerie began its transition to open source software in 2005 when it replaced Microsoft Office with OpenOffice.org across the entire organization.[67] In September 2012, the French Prime Minister laid down a set of action-oriented recommendations about using open-source in the French public administration.[68] These recommendations are published in a document based on the works of an inter-ministerial group of experts.[69] This document promotes some orientations like establishing an actual convergence on open-source stubs, activating a network of expertise about converging stubs, improving the support of open-source software, contributing to selected stubs, following the big communities, spreading alternatives to the main commercial solutions, tracing the use of open-source and its effects, developing the culture of use of the open-source licenses in the developments of public information systems. One of the aim of this experts groups is also to establish lists of recommended open-source software to use in the French public administration.[70] |
| Germany | In the GermanCity of Munich, conversion of 15,000 PCs and laptops from Microsoft Windows-based operating systems to aDebian-based Linux environment calledLiMux spanned the ten years of 2003 to 2013. After successful completion of the project, more than 80% of all computers were running Linux.[71] On November 13, 2017, The Register reported that Munich was planning to revert to Windows 10 by 2020.[72] But in 2020, Munich decided to shift back from Microsoft to Linux again.[73] In 2022 Germany launched[74]Open CoDE, its own FOSS repository and forum. |
| India | The Government ofKerala, India, announced its official support for free and open-source software in its State IT Policy of 2001,[75][discuss] which was formulated after the first-ever Free software conference in India,Freedom First!, held in July 2001 in Trivandrum, the capital of Kerala. In 2009, Government of Kerala started the International Centre for Free and Open Source Software (ICFOSS).[76] In March 2015 the Indian government announced a policy on adoption of FOSS.[77][78] |
| Italy | The Italian military is transitioning to LibreOffice and theOpenDocument Format (ODF). LibreItalia Association announced on September 15, 2015, that the Ministry of Defence would over the next year-and-a-half install this suite of office productivity tools on some 150,000 PC workstations, making it Europe's second-largest LibreOffice implementation.[79] By June 23, 2016, 6,000 stations have been migrated.[80] E-learning military platform.[81][needs update] |
| Jordan | In January 2010, theGovernment of Jordan announced a partnership with Ingres Corporation (now namedActian), an open-source database-management company based in the United States, to promote open-source software use, starting with university systems in Jordan.[82] |
| Malaysia | Malaysia launched the "Malaysian Public Sector Open Source Software Program", saving millions on proprietary software licenses until 2008.[83][84] |
| Peru | In 2005, theGovernment of Peru voted to adopt open source across all its bodies.[85] The 2002 response to Microsoft's critique is available online. In the preamble to the bill, the Peruvian government stressed that the choice was made to ensure that key pillars ofdemocracy were safeguarded: "The basic principles which inspire the Bill are linked to the basic guarantees of a state of law."[86] |
| Uganda | In September 2014, the Uganda National Information Technology Authority (NITA-U) announced a call for feedback on an Open Source Strategy & Policy[87] at a workshop in conjunction with the ICT Association of Uganda (ICTAU). |
| United States | In February 2009, theWhite House moved its website to Linux servers usingDrupal for content management.[88] In August 2016, theUnited States government announced a new federalsource code policy which mandates that at least 20% of custom source code developed by or for any agency of the federal government be released asopen-source software (OSS).[89] In addition, the policy requires that all source code be shared between agencies. The public release is under a three-year pilot program and agencies are obliged to collect data on this pilot to gauge its performance. The overall policy aims to reduce duplication, avoid vendor 'lock-in', and stimulate collaborative development. A new websitecode |
| Venezuela | In 2004, a law inVenezuela (Decree 3390) went into effect, mandating a two-year transition to open source in all public agencies. As of June 2009[update], the transition was still under way.[91][92][needs update] |
"We migrated key functions from Windows to Linux because we needed an operating system that was stable and reliable -- one that would give us in-house control. So if we needed to patch, adjust, or adapt, we could."
In 2017, theEuropean Commission stated that "EU institutions should become open source software users themselves, even more than they already are" and listed open source software as one of the nine key drivers of innovation, together withbig data, mobility,cloud computing and theinternet of things.[95]
In 2020, theEuropean Commission adopted itsOpen Source Strategy 2020-2023,[96] including encouraging sharing and reuse of software and publishing Commission's source code as key objectives. Among concrete actions there is also to set up an Open Source Programme Office in 2020[97] and in 2022 it launched its own FOSS repositoryhttps://code.europa.eu/.[98]
In 2021, theCommission Decision on the open source licensing and reuse of Commission software (2021/C 495 I/01)[99] was adopted, under which, as a general principle, the European Commission may release software underEUPL or another FOSS license, if more appropriate. There are exceptions though.
In May 2022,[100] theExpert group on the Interoperability of European Public Services came published 27 recommendations to strengthen the interoperability of public administrations across the EU. These recommendations are to be taken into account later in the same year in Commission's proposal of the"Interoperable Europe Act".
 | This section should include a summary of, or be summarized in, another article. SeeWikipedia:Summary style for information on how to incorporate it into this article's main text, or the main text of another article.(July 2017) |
| This sectionprovides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject. Please helpimprove the article byproviding more context for the reader.(February 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
While copyright is the primary legal mechanism that FOSS authors use to ensure license compliance for their software, other mechanisms such as legislation, patents, and trademarks have implications as well. In response to legal issues with patents and theDigital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), the Free Software Foundation releasedversion 3 of its GNU General Public License (GNU GPLv3) in 2007 that explicitly addressed the DMCA and patent rights.
After the development of the GNU GPLv3 in 2007, the FSF (as the copyright holder of many pieces of the GNU system) updated many[citation needed] of the GNU programs' licenses from GPLv2 to GPLv3. On the other hand, the adoption of the new GPL version was heavily discussed in the FOSS ecosystem,[101] several projects decided against upgrading to GPLv3. For instance theLinux kernel,[102][103] theBusyBox[104][105] project,AdvFS,[106]Blender,[107] and theVLC media player decided against adopting the GPLv3.[108]
Apple, a user ofGCC and a heavy user of bothDRM and patents, switched the compiler in itsXcode IDE from GCC toClang, which is another FOSS compiler[109] but is under apermissive license.[110]LWN speculated that Apple was motivated partly by a desire to avoid GPLv3.[109] TheSamba project also switched to GPLv3, so Apple replacedSamba in their software suite by a closed-source, proprietary software alternative.[111]
Leemhuis criticizes theprioritization of skilled developers who − instead of fixing issues in already popular open-source applications and desktop environments − create new, mostly redundant software to gain fame and fortune.[112]
He also criticizes notebook manufacturers for optimizing their own products only privately or creatingworkarounds instead of helping fix the actual causes of the many issues with Linux on notebooks such as the unnecessary power consumption.[112]
Mergers have affected major open-source software.Sun Microsystems (Sun) acquiredMySQL AB, owner of the popular open-sourceMySQL database, in 2008.[113]
Oracle in turn purchased Sun in January 2010, acquiring their copyrights, patents, and trademarks. Thus, Oracle became the owner of both the most popular proprietary database and the most popular open-source database. Oracle's attempts to commercialize the open-source MySQL database have raised concerns in the FOSS community.[114] Partly in response to uncertainty about the future of MySQL, the FOSS communityforked the project into newdatabase systems outside of Oracle's control. These includeMariaDB,Percona, andDrizzle.[115] All of these have distinct names; they are distinct projects and cannot use the trademarked name MySQL.[116]
In August 2010,Oracle suedGoogle, claiming that its use ofJava inAndroid infringed on Oracle's copyrights and patents. In May 2012, the trial judge determined that Google did not infringe on Oracle's patents and ruled that the structure of the Java APIs used by Google was not copyrightable. The jury found that Google infringed a small number of copied files, but the partiesstipulated that Google would pay no damages.[117] Oracle appealed to theFederal Circuit, and Google filed across-appeal on the literal copying claim.[118]
By defying ownership regulations in the construction and use of information—a key area of contemporarygrowth—theFree/Open Source Software (FOSS) movement countersneoliberalism andprivatization in general.[119][120]
By realizing the historical potential of an "economy of abundance" for thenew digital world, FOSS may lay down a plan for political resistance or show the way towards a potentialtransformation ofcapitalism.[120]
According toYochai Benkler, Jack N. and Lillian R. Berkman Professor for Entrepreneurial Legal Studies atHarvard Law School, free software is the most visible part of a new economy ofcommons-based peer production of information, knowledge, and culture. As examples, he cites a variety of FOSS projects, including both free software and open-source.[121]
FLOSS is an umbrella term covering a diversity of kinds of software and approaches to development [...] 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 [...], hence our use of this umbrella term.
The two predominant strains of FOSS licences are those that comply with the Open Source Initiative's 'Open Source Definition', and those that comply with the Free Software Foundation's 'Free Software Definition' [...] The list of 'open source' licences kept by the OSI, and of 'free' software licences kept by the FSF, are together called FOSS (free and open-source software) licences. All FOSS licences, because they meet the requirements of either OSI or FSF, should also meet our criteria for neutral voluntary licences and thus software licensed under them is part of the public domain.
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 termFree and Open Source Software to cover both Free Software and Open Source Software. FOSS is a term that can be used without particular bias towards either political approach.
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.
While IBM's policy of withholding source code for selected software products has already marked its second anniversary, users are only now beginning to cope with the impact of that decision. But whether or not the advent of object-code-only products has affected their day-to-day DP operations, some users remain angry about IBM's decision. Announced in February 1983, IBM's object-code-only policy has been applied to a growing list of Big Blue system software products
Currently the decision to move from GPL v2 to GPL v3 is being hotly debated by many open source projects. According to Palamida, a provider of IP compliance software, there have been roughly 2489 open source projects that have moved from GPL v2 to later versions.
Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
"In some ways, Linux was the project that really made the split clear between what the FSF is pushing which is very different from what open source and Linux has always been about, which is more of a technical superiority instead of a -- this religious belief in freedom," Torvalds told Zemlin. "So, the GPL Version 3 reflects the FSF's goals and the GPL Version 2 pretty closely matches what I think a license should do and so right now, Version 2 is where the kernel is."
Since BusyBox can be found in so many embedded systems, it finds itself at the core of the GPLv3 anti-DRM debate. [...]The real outcomes, however, are this: BusyBox will be GPLv2 only starting with the next release. It is generally accepted that stripping out the "or any later version" is legally defensible, and that the merging of other GPLv2-only code will force that issue in any case
Don't invent a straw man argument please. I consider licensing BusyBox under GPLv3 to be useless, unnecessary, overcomplicated, and confusing, and in addition to that it has actual downsides. 1) Useless: We're never dropping GPLv2.
[Blender's Toni Roosendaal:] "Blender is also still 'GPLv2 or later'. For the time being we stick to that, moving to GPL 3 has no evident benefits I know of."
In 2001, VLC was released under the OSI-approved GNU General Public version 2, with the commonly-offered option to use "any later version" thereof (though there was not any such later version at the time). Following the release by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) of the new version 3 of its GNU General Public License (GPL) on the 29th of June 2007, contributors to the VLC media player, and other software projects hosted at videolan.org, debated the possibility of updating the licensing terms for future version of the VLC media player and other hosted projects, to version 3 of the GPL. [...] There is strong concern that these new additional requirements might not match the industrial and economic reality of our time, especially in the market of consumer electronics. It is our belief that changing our licensing terms to GPL version 3 would currently not be in the best interest of our community as a whole. Consequently, we plan to keep distributing future versions of VLC media player under the terms of the GPL version 2.
| General | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Software packages | |||
| Community | |||
| Organisations | |||
| Licenses |
| ||
| Challenges | |||
| Related topics | |||
