Talk:Open-source license/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sohom Datta (talk · contribs) 13:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Taking this on, it might take me a while since I will be travelin over this week. Sohom (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, and safe travels, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Stallman witnessed fragmentation that he attributed to proprietary software, and founded the free software movement. This sentence is phrased weirdly, it might be best to break up and put some distance between these two actions. (ie. stallman witnessed xyz, and did abc, which resulted in cde. As a result of this, he is considered one of the earliest founders of the free software movement.)
  • Done, rephrased, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
• He contrasted the proprietary model where small pools of secretive workers would carry out this work with the development of Linux where the pool of testers included potentially the entire world. I'm not so sure about this, does he specifically mention the proprietary model ? My understanding is that he is comparing and contrasting two models of open-source development and not proprietary and open-source development.
  • Raymond discusses that also. Here is a quote from that chapter: "The developer who uses only his or her own brain in a closed project is going to fall behind the developer who knows how to create an open, evolutionary context in which feedback exploring the design space, code contributions, bug-spotting, and other improvements come from from hundreds (perhaps thousands) of people. But the traditional Unix world was prevented from pushing this approach to the ultimate by several factors. One was the legal contraints of various licenses, trade secrets, and commercial interests." Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk)
    • While I do agree with what your saying here, I'd like a third-party citation that mentions this, instead of us interpreting the author's words here. Sohom (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
      • Done, added a citation to Brock (2022): "The seminal The Cathedral and The Bazaar, Eric Raymond’s book on Open Source, emphasised the advantages of distributed, collaborative development compared to the controlled and closed development practices of proprietary software vendors as one of the first texts on Open Source." Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
• The OSI succeeded in bringing open-source development to corporate developers including Sun Microsystems, IBM, Netscape, Mozilla, Apache, Apple Inc., Microsoft, and Nokia. WP:SEAOFBLUE. You will probably need to qualify why you mention each of these companies.
  • Done. I had linked organizations that created open-source licenses. To reduce the "sea of blue", I've cut the links down to only organizations that have created licenses widely in use in current FOSS projects, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
• For example, this is why IBM is a trademark for International Business Machines, which supplies mainframe computing solutions, and the International Brotherhood of Magicians which supplies guidance on stage magic. This particular sentence reads a bit textbookish/instructive, maybe it needs to be rephrased ?
  • Done, I've clipped it out rather than rephrase. In retrospect, I was using it as a kind of "instructive" example, which it would still be if rephrased, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Sohom_Datta, are you still reviewing this nomination? No rush, if you are still traveling, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

    I am, will get back to it this week. I'm done traveling for now :) Sohom (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Next batch:

• Thus, open-source patent grants can offer permission only from covered patents. Introduce what "open-source patent grants" are before this line.
  • Done. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
• Trademarks on FOSS function the same as any trademark. as any other trademark?
  • Done. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
• the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) license to permit free usage with no obligations placed on users. This line is confusing. I don't think the cost of the software is codified in the license, also I would assume the license applies to redistributors and not users of the system.
  • Done. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
• "Berkeley Software Distribution" should link to the license (in that context) and not the discontinued software ? Maybe we need some text to clarify that BSD's name comes from the namesake software.
  • Done, I've revised this paragraph to try and make it more clear. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
• One of the strengths of open-source development is the complex process where developers can build Does the source mention "complex" ?
  • In a way, but I've changed it to "continual" to be more specific. Rosen (2005, p. 88) says, "The ever lengthening chain of title is reflective of the robust creative energies of community development. A major open source software program may have a long chain of title by the time it arrives on your computer.". Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
• ommon to specify if software uses a 2-clause if the software?
  • Done. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
• the source code be made available under a copyleft license. Under a similar license?
  • Done. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
• The GPL, LGPL, AGPL, MPL, EPL, and Apache License have all been revised to enhance compatibility. This a bit of a alphabet soup, it might be usefull to just say "Multiple license like XYZ and YZX have been revised"
  • Done. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
• Continuing from the previous point, can we have a example of such a revision?
  • Done. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
• Jumping a bit forward, I'm not really a fan of the comparison section, it should probably split into it's own seperate list article.
  • @Sohom Datta: Reliable sources give significant attention to public domain software and where the boundaries are between public domain software and in what situations could you call or not call it open-source, and whether public-domain-equivalent licenses are FOSS licenses. I've merged that section up one level as "Public domain software". I've clipped out the "Freeware" section but may use some of the sources for drafting a criticism/limitations section. I've clipped out almost all of the "Free software" section and placed a much more condensed version alongside the discusison of free software. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
• I see nothing addressing/covering the modern criticism of open-source licenses, especially in the context of multiple companies moving to closed source licenses over disagreements due to cloud hosting providers. Maybe, that is something that could be included ?
  • That's a good catch and will improve NPOV. I'm going to take a coupe days to make notes and draft a section. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've added this in as "Limitations" to best reflect the sources. If "Criticism" is preferred to offer a similar heading to other articles, I'm fine with that as well. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• These outline how to come back into compliance from a violation. Does "these" refer to the German process or the cease and desist letter ?
  • Done. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
• Under the bare license interpretation, advocated by the FSF, a case is brought to court by the copyright holder as copyright infringement. Explain what a bare license is.
  • Done. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• nit, in File:Open-source-license-chart.svg the <1% should be at the end of the piechart.
  • Done, I'll likely go back and tweak the colors but <1% is now at the final position clockwise. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Rjjiii, extremely sorry for the delay, I have finished doing a first read of the article and have listed the issues I found in the first pass. I still need to spotcheck the references, but I'll do that once the current changes are made. I'll be generally available this week, so feel free to ping me when you finish. Sohom (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

You're good. I think that GA reviews and peer reviews are really good for Wikipedia and also recognize that they can take some time and effort to get right. I've ticked off the simple to resolve issues first. I'll ping you after I draft some content "addressing/covering the modern criticism". That was a good catch and will results in better NPOV. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sohom Datta: There is now a criticism section addressing issues with cloud computing and trademark law, and I think I've responded to all the points above. When checking the sources, let me know if you need any assistance accessing any of them or quoted passages. Also, I'm realizing while editing that I've cited some passages to chapters. I think this meets WP:V, but if it's a pain to verify, you can ping me to narrow them down to specific pages, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sohom Datta: ? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll get to this tmrw, this fell of my radar, sorry for the really long wait. Sohom (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Did a dozen spotchecks most seem fine, two points,

• Why is a youtube video considered RS ? (Is Heather Meeker a subject matter expert?)
• The text 76 b is supporting does not appear to be in the citation.

Otherwise everything looks good. Sohom (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Rjjiii ping Sohom (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

No worries about the wait; things take the time they take.

• I've made the text cited at 76b more spare to remove any potential inference that I'm making regarding this paragraph from the end of Ballhausen 2022, § 5.4: Where the copyright owner’s key focus is on ensuring that an organisation complies with Open Source licence terms, such preliminary proceedings are an effective tool. However, where proceedings are used to obtain as much money as possible out of a court settlement or declaration to cease and desist as possible, thus allowing the copyright owner to trigger penalty payments at will, there is a high risk that the enforcement may become formalistic and that a copyright owner may suggest very detailed licence interpretation, which may both be impractical and harmful for the Open Source community at large. To safeguard against this, the Software Freedom Conservancy,15 the FSF,16 and the Netfilter project,17 organisations which hold code on behalf of developers, whose work is detailed further in Chapter 18, and whose code is often the subject of enforcement actions relating to Open Source, defined principles of community- oriented General Public License (GPL) enforcement, aiming to ensure that any enforcement action taking by individual Open Source copyright owners is consistent in ensuring compliance and that it is not centred on generating payments.
• Heather Meeker is an IP lawyer and subject matter expert in open-source legal matters.[1][2] She's had books on open-source licensing published by the American Bar Association and Wiley.[3][4] I chose the YouTube video over one of her books for broader availability.

Many thanks, Sohom_Datta, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

LGTM :) Sohom (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.