Changes

The open source model of operation can be extended to [[open source culture]] in [[decision making]], which allows concurrent input of different agendas, approaches and priorities, in contrast with more centralized models of development such as those typically used in commercial companies. [[Eric S. Raymond|Raymond, Eric S.]] ''[[The Cathedral and the Bazaar]]''. ed 3.0. 2000.  Open source culture is one where collective [[decisions]] or [[fixation]]s are shared during development and made generally available in the [[public domain]], as done in [[Wikipedia]]. This collective approach moderates [[ethical]] concerns over a "conflict of roles" or [[conflict of interest]]. Participants in such a culture are able to modify the collective outcomes and share them with the community. Some consider open source as one of various possible design approaches, while others consider it a critical [[Strategy|strategic]] element of their [[business operations|operations]].

The open source model of operation can be extended to [[open source culture]] in [[decision making]], which allows concurrent input of different agendas, approaches and priorities, in contrast with more centralized models of development such as those typically used in commercial companies. [[Eric S. Raymond|Raymond, Eric S.]] ''[[The Cathedral and the Bazaar]]''. ed 3.0. 2000.  Open source culture is one where collective [[decisions]] or [[fixation]]s are shared during development and made generally available in the [[public domain]], as done in [[Wikipedia]]. This collective approach moderates [[ethical]] concerns over a "conflict of roles" or [[conflict of interest]]. Participants in such a culture are able to modify the collective outcomes and share them with the community. Some consider open source as one of various possible design approaches, while others consider it a critical [[Strategy|strategic]] element of their [[business operations|operations]].

Before the term ''open source'' became popular, developers and producers used various phrases to describe the concept; the term gained popularity with the rise of the [[Internet]] which enabled diverse production models, communication paths and interactive communities. The complexity of such communication relates to [[Brooks' law]], and is described by [[Eric S. Raymond]], "Brooks predicts that as your number of programmers N rises, work performed scales as N but complexity and vulnerability to bugs rises as N-squared. N-squared tracks the number of communications paths (and potential code interfaces) between developers' code bases." —[http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-revenge.html "The Revenge of the Hackers"]. 2000. Later, [[open source software]] became the most prominent face of open source practices.

Before the term ''open source'' became popular, developers and producers used various phrases to describe the concept; the term gained popularity with the rise of the [[Internet]] which enabled diverse production models, communication paths and interactive communities. The complexity of such communication relates to [[Brooks' law]], and is described by [[Eric S. Raymond]], "Brooks predicts that as your number of programmers N rises, work performed scales as N but complexity and vulnerability to bugs rises as N-squared. N-squared tracks the number of communications paths (and potential code interfaces) between developers' code bases." —[https://catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-revenge.html "The Revenge of the Hackers"]. 2000. Later, [[open source software]] became the most prominent face of open source practices.

==History==

==History==

In the 1950s, IBM distributed [[operating system]]s in source format, and the [[SHARE (computing)|SHARE]] user group was formed to facilitate the exchange of source code. In 1960's, researchers with access to the [[Advanced Research Projects Agency Network]] (ARPANET) used a process called [[Request for Comments]], which is similar to [[open standards]], to develop telecommunication network protocols. Characterized by contemporary open source work, this collaborative process led to the birth of the [[Internet]] in 1969.

In the 1950s, IBM distributed [[operating system]]s in source format, and the [[SHARE (computing)|SHARE]] user group was formed to facilitate the exchange of source code. In 1960's, researchers with access to the [[Advanced Research Projects Agency Network]] (ARPANET) used a process called [[Request for Comments]], which is similar to [[open standards]], to develop telecommunication network protocols. Characterized by contemporary open source work, this collaborative process led to the birth of the [[Internet]] in 1969.

The "open source" label came out of a strategy session [http://www.opensource.org/history History of the OSI]. [[Open Source Initiative]]. 2006. held at [[Palo Alto, California|Palo Alto]], [[California]], in reaction to [[Netscape Communications Corporation|Netscape]]'s January 1998 announcement of a source code release for [[Netscape Navigator|Navigator]]. The group of individuals at the session included [[Christine Peterson]] who suggested "open source", [[Todd Anderson]], [[Larry Augustin]], [[Jon "maddog" Hall|Jon Hall]], [[Sam Ockman]], and [[Eric S. Raymond]]. They used the opportunity before the release of Navigator's source code to free themselves of the ideological and confrontational connotations of the term [[free software]]. [[Netscape]] licensed and released its code as open source under the [[Netscape Public License]] and subsequently under the [[Mozilla Public License]]. Open Source: A Multidisciplinary Approach

The "open source" label came out of a strategy session [https://www.opensource.org/history History of the OSI]. [[Open Source Initiative]]. 2006. held at [[Palo Alto, California|Palo Alto]], [[California]], in reaction to [[Netscape Communications Corporation|Netscape]]'s January 1998 announcement of a source code release for [[Netscape Navigator|Navigator]]. The group of individuals at the session included [[Christine Peterson]] who suggested "open source", [[Todd Anderson]], [[Larry Augustin]], [[Jon "maddog" Hall|Jon Hall]], [[Sam Ockman]], and [[Eric S. Raymond]]. They used the opportunity before the release of Navigator's source code to free themselves of the ideological and confrontational connotations of the term [[free software]]. [[Netscape]] licensed and released its code as open source under the [[Netscape Public License]] and subsequently under the [[Mozilla Public License]]. Open Source: A Multidisciplinary Approach

The term was given a big boost at an event organized in April 1998 by technology publisher [[Tim O'Reilly]]. Originally titled the "Freeware Summit" and later known as the "Open Source Summit", [http://linuxgazette.net/issue28/rossum.html Open Source Summit] Linux Gazette. 1998. the event brought together the leaders of many of the most important free and open source projects, including [[Linus Torvalds]], [[Larry Wall]], [[Brian Behlendorf]], [[Eric Allman]], [[Guido van Rossum]], [[Michael Tiemann]], [[Paul Vixie]], [[Jamie Zawinski]] of [[Netscape]], and Eric Raymond. At that meeting, the confusion caused by the name "free software" was brought up. Tiemann argued for "sourceware" as a new term, while Raymond argued for "open source." The assembled developers took a vote, and the winner was announced at a press conference that evening. This milestone may be commonly seen as the birth of the [[Open Source Initiative]].

The term was given a big boost at an event organized in April 1998 by technology publisher [[Tim O'Reilly]]. Originally titled the "Freeware Summit" and later known as the "Open Source Summit", [https://linuxgazette.net/issue28/rossum.html Open Source Summit] Linux Gazette. 1998. the event brought together the leaders of many of the most important free and open source projects, including [[Linus Torvalds]], [[Larry Wall]], [[Brian Behlendorf]], [[Eric Allman]], [[Guido van Rossum]], [[Michael Tiemann]], [[Paul Vixie]], [[Jamie Zawinski]] of [[Netscape]], and Eric Raymond. At that meeting, the confusion caused by the name "free software" was brought up. Tiemann argued for "sourceware" as a new term, while Raymond argued for "open source." The assembled developers took a vote, and the winner was announced at a press conference that evening. This milestone may be commonly seen as the birth of the [[Open Source Initiative]].

The Open Source Initiative (OSI) formed in February 1998 by Raymond and Perens. With about 20 years of evidence from case histories of closed and open development already provided by the Internet, the OSI continued to present the 'open source' case to commercial businesses. They sought to bring a higher profile to the practical benefits of freely available source code, and wanted to bring major software businesses and other high-tech industries into open source. Perens adapted [[Debian]]'s Free Software Guidelines to make the [[Open Source Definition]]. [[Bruce Perens|Perens, Bruce]]. [http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/perens.html] Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution]. [[O'Reilly Media]]. 1999.

The Open Source Initiative (OSI) formed in February 1998 by Raymond and Perens. With about 20 years of evidence from case histories of closed and open development already provided by the Internet, the OSI continued to present the 'open source' case to commercial businesses. They sought to bring a higher profile to the practical benefits of freely available source code, and wanted to bring major software businesses and other high-tech industries into open source. Perens adapted [[Debian]]'s Free Software Guidelines to make the [[Open Source Definition]]. [[Bruce Perens|Perens, Bruce]]. [https://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/perens.html] Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution]. [[O'Reilly Media]]. 1999.

Critics have said that the term "open source" fosters an ambiguity between the mere availability of the source versus the freedom to use, modify, and redistribute it. Developers have used the term Free/Open-Source Software ([[FOSS]]), or Free/Libre/Open-Source Software ([[FLOSS]]), consequently, to describe open-source software that is freely available and free of charge.

Critics have said that the term "open source" fosters an ambiguity between the mere availability of the source versus the freedom to use, modify, and redistribute it. Developers have used the term Free/Open-Source Software ([[FOSS]]), or Free/Libre/Open-Source Software ([[FLOSS]]), consequently, to describe open-source software that is freely available and free of charge.

===Ethics===

===Ethics===

Open Source ethics is split into two strands:

Open Source ethics is split into two strands:

* ''Open Source Ethics as an Ethical School'' - Charles Ess and David Berry are researching whether ethics can learn anything from an open source approach. Ess famously even defined the AoIR Research Guidelines as an example of open source ethics.[http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/berry2.pdf] Berry (2004) Internet Ethics: Privacy, Ethics and Alienation - An Open Source Approach.] (PDF file)

* ''Open Source Ethics as an Ethical School'' - Charles Ess and David Berry are researching whether ethics can learn anything from an open source approach. Ess famously even defined the AoIR Research Guidelines as an example of open source ethics.[https://opensource.mit.edu/papers/berry2.pdf] Berry (2004) Internet Ethics: Privacy, Ethics and Alienation - An Open Source Approach.] (PDF file)

* ''Open Source Ethics as a Professional Body of Rules'' - This is based principally on the computer ethics school, studying the questions of ethics and professionalism in the computer industry in general and software development in particular. [http://springerlink.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?wasp],  El-Emam, K (2001). Ethics and Open Source. Empirical Software Engineering 6(4).]

* ''Open Source Ethics as a Professional Body of Rules'' - This is based principally on the computer ethics school, studying the questions of ethics and professionalism in the computer industry in general and software development in particular. [https://springerlink.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?wasp],  El-Emam, K (2001). Ethics and Open Source. Empirical Software Engineering 6(4).]

===Media===

===Media===

[[OpenDocument]] is an [[open format|open]] [[document file format]] for saving and exchanging editable office documents such as text documents (including memos, reports, and books), [[spreadsheet]]s, charts, and presentations. Organizations and individuals that store their data in an open format such as OpenDocument avoid being [[Vendor lock-in|locked in]] to a single software vendor, leaving them free to switch software if their current vendor goes out of business, raises their prices, changes their software, or changes their [[software license|licensing]] terms to something less favorable.

[[OpenDocument]] is an [[open format|open]] [[document file format]] for saving and exchanging editable office documents such as text documents (including memos, reports, and books), [[spreadsheet]]s, charts, and presentations. Organizations and individuals that store their data in an open format such as OpenDocument avoid being [[Vendor lock-in|locked in]] to a single software vendor, leaving them free to switch software if their current vendor goes out of business, raises their prices, changes their software, or changes their [[software license|licensing]] terms to something less favorable.

[[Open source movie production]] is either an open call system in which a changing crew and cast collaborate in movie production, a system in which the end result is made available for re-use by others or in which exclusively open source products are used in the production. The 2006 movie [[Elephants Dream]] is said to be the "world's first open movie" [http://www.elephantsdream.org/ http://www.elephantsdream.org/], created entirely using [[open source technology]].

[[Open source movie production]] is either an open call system in which a changing crew and cast collaborate in movie production, a system in which the end result is made available for re-use by others or in which exclusively open source products are used in the production. The 2006 movie [[Elephants Dream]] is said to be the "world's first open movie" [https://www.elephantsdream.org/ https://www.elephantsdream.org/], created entirely using [[open source technology]].

[[Open Source Technology]] Good Stoves - a movement that each individual or organization /s develop technology for common good with out expecting profit (or patenting). It is an idea to design efficient stoves for the millions using traditional or less efficient biomass stoves, so that these clean stoves if adopted would help in mitigating the Climate change / global warming too. www.goodstove.com

[[Open Source Technology]] Good Stoves - a movement that each individual or organization /s develop technology for common good with out expecting profit (or patenting). It is an idea to design efficient stoves for the millions using traditional or less efficient biomass stoves, so that these clean stoves if adopted would help in mitigating the Climate change / global warming too. www.goodstove.com

An [[open source documentary]] film has a production process allowing the open contributions of archival material, [[footage]], and other filmic elements, both in unedited and edited form. By doing so, on-line contributors become part of the process of creating the film, helping to influence the editorial and visual material to be used in the documentary, as well as its thematic development. The first open source documentary film to go into production [http://www.lcmedia.com/americanrevolution.pdf "The American Revolution"] [http://www.lcmedia.com/americanrevolution.pdf ] "The American Revolution]," which will examine the role that WBCN-FM in Boston played in the cultural, social and political changes locally and nationally from 1968 to 1974, is being produced by Lichtenstein Creative Media and the non-profit The Fund for Independent Media. [http://www.opensourcecinema.org Open Source Cinema] is a website to create Basement Tapes, a feature documentary about copyright in the digital age, co-produced by the [http://www.nfb.ca National Film Board of Canada].

An [[open source documentary]] film has a production process allowing the open contributions of archival material, [[footage]], and other filmic elements, both in unedited and edited form. By doing so, on-line contributors become part of the process of creating the film, helping to influence the editorial and visual material to be used in the documentary, as well as its thematic development. The first open source documentary film to go into production [https://www.lcmedia.com/americanrevolution.pdf "The American Revolution"] [https://www.lcmedia.com/americanrevolution.pdf ] "The American Revolution]," which will examine the role that WBCN-FM in Boston played in the cultural, social and political changes locally and nationally from 1968 to 1974, is being produced by Lichtenstein Creative Media and the non-profit The Fund for Independent Media. [https://www.opensourcecinema.org Open Source Cinema] is a website to create Basement Tapes, a feature documentary about copyright in the digital age, co-produced by the [https://www.nfb.ca National Film Board of Canada].

[[Open Source Filmmaking]] refers to a form of filmmaking that takes a method of idea formation from open source software, but in this case the 'source' for a film maker is raw unedited footage rather than programming code. It can also refer to a method of filmmaking where the process of creation is 'open' i.e. a disparate group of contributors, at different times contribute to the final piece.

[[Open Source Filmmaking]] refers to a form of filmmaking that takes a method of idea formation from open source software, but in this case the 'source' for a film maker is raw unedited footage rather than programming code. It can also refer to a method of filmmaking where the process of creation is 'open' i.e. a disparate group of contributors, at different times contribute to the final piece.

[[Benjamin Franklin]] was an early contributor eventually donating all his inventions including the [[Franklin stove]], [[bifocals]] and the [[lightning rod]] to the public domain after successfully profiting off their sales and patents.

[[Benjamin Franklin]] was an early contributor eventually donating all his inventions including the [[Franklin stove]], [[bifocals]] and the [[lightning rod]] to the public domain after successfully profiting off their sales and patents.

New NGO communities are starting to use the open source technology as a tool. One example is the Open Source Youth Network started in 2007 in Lisboa by ISCA members, http://www.isca-web.org/english/youth/yource/thenetwork.

New NGO communities are starting to use the open source technology as a tool. One example is the Open Source Youth Network started in 2007 in Lisboa by ISCA members, https://www.isca-web.org/english/youth/yource/thenetwork.

===Arts and recreation===

===Arts and recreation===

Copyright protection is used in the [[performing arts]] and even in athletic activities. Groups have attempted to protect such practices from being fettered by copyright. http://www.yogaunity.org

Copyright protection is used in the [[performing arts]] and even in athletic activities. Groups have attempted to protect such practices from being fettered by copyright. https://www.yogaunity.org

== Criticism ==

== Criticism ==

Critics of “Open Source” publishing cite the need for direct compensation for the work of creation. For example, the act of writing a book, building a complex piece of software, or producing a motion picture requires a substantial amount of labor. Retaining [[intellectual property]] rights over such works greatly increases the feasibility of obtaining financial compensation which covers the labor costs. The critics argue that without this compensation, many socially desirable and useful works would never be created in the first place. Some critics draw distinctions between areas where Open Source collaborations have successfully created useful products, such as general-purpose software, and areas where they see compensation as more important and collaboration as less important, such as highly specialized complex software projects, entertainment, or news.

Critics of “Open Source” publishing cite the need for direct compensation for the work of creation. For example, the act of writing a book, building a complex piece of software, or producing a motion picture requires a substantial amount of labor. Retaining [[intellectual property]] rights over such works greatly increases the feasibility of obtaining financial compensation which covers the labor costs. The critics argue that without this compensation, many socially desirable and useful works would never be created in the first place. Some critics draw distinctions between areas where Open Source collaborations have successfully created useful products, such as general-purpose software, and areas where they see compensation as more important and collaboration as less important, such as highly specialized complex software projects, entertainment, or news.

Another criticism of the Open Source movement is that these projects are not really as self-organizing as their proponents claim. This argument holds that Open Source projects succeed only when they have a strong central manager, even if that manager is a volunteer. The article [http://www.chc-3.com/pub/manage_themselves.htm Open Source Projects Manage Themselves? Dream On.] by Chuck Connell explains this viewpoint. Eric Raymond [http://www.chc-3.com/pub/manage_themselves_r1.htm responded] to this criticism, and Chuck Connell [http://www.chc-3.com/pub/manage_themselves_r2.htm answered].

Another criticism of the Open Source movement is that these projects are not really as self-organizing as their proponents claim. This argument holds that Open Source projects succeed only when they have a strong central manager, even if that manager is a volunteer. The article [https://www.chc-3.com/pub/manage_themselves.htm Open Source Projects Manage Themselves? Dream On.] by Chuck Connell explains this viewpoint. Eric Raymond [https://www.chc-3.com/pub/manage_themselves_r1.htm responded] to this criticism, and Chuck Connell [https://www.chc-3.com/pub/manage_themselves_r2.htm answered].

The [[Free Software Foundation]] (FSF) opposes the term “Open Source” being applied to what they refer to as “free software”.[http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html], Why “Open Source” misses the point of Free Software

The [[Free Software Foundation]] (FSF) opposes the term “Open Source” being applied to what they refer to as “free software”.[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html], Why “Open Source” misses the point of Free Software

"As the advocates of open source draw new users into our community, we free software activists have to work even more to bring the issue of freedom to those new users' attention. We have to say, “It's free software and it gives you freedom!”—more and louder than ever. Every time you say “free software” rather than “open source,” you help our campaign. They also oppose the professed pragmatism of the [[Open Source Initiative]], as they fear that the free software ideals of freedom and community are threatened by compromising on the FSF's idealistic standards for software freedom." [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html],  

"As the advocates of open source draw new users into our community, we free software activists have to work even more to bring the issue of freedom to those new users' attention. We have to say, “It's free software and it gives you freedom!”—more and louder than ever. Every time you say “free software” rather than “open source,” you help our campaign. They also oppose the professed pragmatism of the [[Open Source Initiative]], as they fear that the free software ideals of freedom and community are threatened by compromising on the FSF's idealistic standards for software freedom." [https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html],  

Why “Free Software” is better than “Open Source”, GNU Project, Sooner or later these users will be invited to switch back to proprietary software for some practical advantage. Countless companies seek to offer such temptation, and why would users decline? Only if they have learned to value the freedom free software gives them, for its own sake. It is up to us to spread this idea—and in order to do that, we have to talk about freedom. A certain amount of the “keep quiet” approach to business can be useful for the community, but we must have plenty of freedom talk too.

Why “Free Software” is better than “Open Source”, GNU Project, Sooner or later these users will be invited to switch back to proprietary software for some practical advantage. Countless companies seek to offer such temptation, and why would users decline? Only if they have learned to value the freedom free software gives them, for its own sake. It is up to us to spread this idea—and in order to do that, we have to talk about freedom. A certain amount of the “keep quiet” approach to business can be useful for the community, but we must have plenty of freedom talk too.

[http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html], Why “Open Source” misses the point of Free Software, Richard Stallman, 2007-06-16, Philosophy of the GNU Project, GNU Project

[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html], Why “Open Source” misses the point of Free Software, Richard Stallman, 2007-06-16, Philosophy of the GNU Project, GNU Project

"Under the pressure of the movie and record companies, software for individuals to use is increasingly designed specifically to restrict them. This malicious feature is known as DRM, or Digital Restrictions Management (see DefectiveByDesign.org), and it is the antithesis in spirit of the freedom that free software aims to provide. [...] Yet some open source supporters have proposed “open source DRM” software. Their idea is that by publishing the source code of programs designed to restrict your access to encrypted media, and allowing others to change it, they will produce more powerful and reliable software for restricting users like you. Then it will be delivered to you in devices that do not allow you to change it. This software might be “open source,” and use the open source development model; but it won't be free software, since it won't respect the freedom of the users that actually run it. If the open source development model succeeds in making this software more powerful and reliable for restricting you, that will make it even worse."

"Under the pressure of the movie and record companies, software for individuals to use is increasingly designed specifically to restrict them. This malicious feature is known as DRM, or Digital Restrictions Management (see DefectiveByDesign.org), and it is the antithesis in spirit of the freedom that free software aims to provide. [...] Yet some open source supporters have proposed “open source DRM” software. Their idea is that by publishing the source code of programs designed to restrict your access to encrypted media, and allowing others to change it, they will produce more powerful and reliable software for restricting users like you. Then it will be delivered to you in devices that do not allow you to change it. This software might be “open source,” and use the open source development model; but it won't be free software, since it won't respect the freedom of the users that actually run it. If the open source development model succeeds in making this software more powerful and reliable for restricting you, that will make it even worse."

== Business models ==

== Business models ==

There are a number of commonly recognized barriers to the adoption of open source software by enterprises. These barriers include the perception that open source licenses are viral, lack of formal support and training, the velocity of change, and a lack of a long term roadmap. The majority of these barriers are risk-related. Many business models exist around open source software to provide a 'whole product' to help reduce these risks. The 'whole product' typically includes support, professional services, training, certification, partner programs, references and use cases. These [[Commercial open source applications#Introduction to the Business Model|business models]] range from 'services only' organisations that do not participate in the development of the software to models where the majority of the software is created by full-time committers that are employed by a central organization. These business models have come into existence recently and their operation is not commonly understood. One model that has been developed to explain this is the [http://www.pentaho.org/beekeeper Bee Keeper Model]

There are a number of commonly recognized barriers to the adoption of open source software by enterprises. These barriers include the perception that open source licenses are viral, lack of formal support and training, the velocity of change, and a lack of a long term roadmap. The majority of these barriers are risk-related. Many business models exist around open source software to provide a 'whole product' to help reduce these risks. The 'whole product' typically includes support, professional services, training, certification, partner programs, references and use cases. These [[Commercial open source applications#Introduction to the Business Model|business models]] range from 'services only' organisations that do not participate in the development of the software to models where the majority of the software is created by full-time committers that are employed by a central organization. These business models have come into existence recently and their operation is not commonly understood. One model that has been developed to explain this is the [https://www.pentaho.org/beekeeper Bee Keeper Model]

==See also==  

==See also==  

==External links==

==External links==

*[http://www.benkler.org/CoasesPenguin.PDF Benkler, Yochai, “Coase's Penguin, or, Linux and The Nature of the Firm. Yale Law Journal 112.3 (Dec 2002): p367(78)] (in Adobe [[Portable Document Format|pdf]] format)

*[https://www.benkler.org/CoasesPenguin.PDF Benkler, Yochai, “Coase's Penguin, or, Linux and The Nature of the Firm. Yale Law Journal 112.3 (Dec 2002): p367(78)] (in Adobe [[Portable Document Format|pdf]] format)

*[http://economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_NSNQQND An open-source shot in the arm?] [[The Economist]], Jun 10th 2004,  

*[https://economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_NSNQQND An open-source shot in the arm?] [[The Economist]], Jun 10th 2004,  

*[http://www.askmar.com/open.html SDForum Distinguished Speaker talks on Open Source Software by Guido van Rossum, Howard Rheingold, and Bruce Perens, 2005.]

*[https://www.askmar.com/open.html SDForum Distinguished Speaker talks on Open Source Software by Guido van Rossum, Howard Rheingold, and Bruce Perens, 2005.]

fr: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

fr: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

[[Category: General Reference]]

[[Category: General Reference]]