Open-source software movement - Wikipedia

Open-source software movement - Wikipedia
Jump to content
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Open collaboration movement supporting open-source licenses
Not to be confused with
Free software movement
, a related movement.
For related movements beyond software, see
Open-source model
open-source software movement
The
open-source software movement
is a social movement that supports the use of
open-source licenses
for some or all software, as part of the broader notion of
open collaboration
The movement emerged to promote the development and adoption of
open-source software
Programmers
participating in the open-source movement contribute to software development through voluntary collaboration and code sharing.
Open-source licenses typically require that source code be made available without restrictions on modification or redistribution, and prohibit discrimination against individuals or groups. Under this development model, anyone can obtain, modify, and redistribute open-source code. Modifications are typically shared with the broader community, creating a collaborative development process where contributions are tracked and attributed.
This collaborative approach differs from proprietary software development models in its emphasis on transparency and community participation.
Brief history
edit
Further information:
Open-source software § History
, and
History of free and open-source software
The label
open source
was created and adopted by a group of people in the
free software movement
at a strategy session
held at
Palo Alto, California
, in reaction to
Netscape
's January 1998 announcement of a source-code release for
Navigator
. One of the reasons behind using the term was that "the advantage of using the term open source is that the business world usually tries to keep free technologies from being installed."
Those people who adopted the term 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". Later in February 1998,
Bruce Perens
and
Eric S. Raymond
founded an organization called
Open Source Initiative
(OSI) "as an educational, advocacy, and stewardship organization at a cusp moment in the history of that culture."
Evolution
edit
In the early computing era, hardware and software were not clearly distinguished. Computer users typically had programming knowledge and could modify the systems they used. When IBM introduced the first commercial electronic computer in 1952, maintenance was challenging and costs were high. Software complexity posed additional challenges for computer owners. In response, computer owners formed a collaborative group called PACT (The Project for the Advancement of Coding Techniques) to develop shared programming tools. In 1956, the Eisenhower administration imposed restrictions on
AT&T
's business activities, which influenced subsequent technological development patterns. Computer manufacturers subsequently focused on reducing costs and developing multi-user operating systems.
MIT
's computation center developed the Compatible Time-Sharing System (CTSS), one of the first multi-user systems, establishing foundations for later collaborative software development practices.
The open-source movement is branched from the
free software movement
which began in the late 80s with the launching of the GNU project by
Richard Stallman
Stallman is regarded within the open-source community as sharing a key role in the conceptualization of freely-shared source code for software development.
The term "
free software
" in the free software movement is meant to imply freedom of software exchange and modification. The term does not refer to any monetary freedom.
Both the free-software movement and the open-source movement share this view of free exchange of
programming code
, and this is often why both of the movements are sometimes referenced in literature as part of the
FOSS
or "Free and Open Software" or
FLOSS
"Free/Libre Open-Source" communities.
These movements share fundamental differences in their view of open software. The main, factionalizing difference between the groups is the relationship between open-source and proprietary software. Often, makers of
proprietary software
, such as
Microsoft
, may make efforts to support open-source software to remain competitive.
dead link
Members of the open-source community are willing to coexist with the makers of proprietary software
and feel that the issue of whether software is open source is a matter of practicality.
10
In contrast, members of the free-software community maintain the vision that all software is a part of freedom of speech
and that proprietary software is unethical and unjust.
The free-software movement openly champions this belief through talks that denounce proprietary software. As a whole, the community refuses to support proprietary software. Further there are external motivations for these developers. One motivation is that, when a programmer fixes a bug or makes a program it benefits others in an open-source environment. Another motivation is that a programmer can work on multiple projects that they find interesting and enjoyable. Programming in the open-source world can also lead to commercial job offers or entrance into the venture capital community. These are just a few reasons why open-source programmers continue to create and advance software.
11
While cognizant of the fact that both the free-software movement and the open-source movement share similarities in practical recommendations regarding open source, the free-software movement fervently continues to distinguish itself from the open-source movement entirely.
12
The free-software movement maintains that it has fundamentally different attitudes toward the relationship between open-source and proprietary software. The free-software community does not view the open-source community as their target grievance, however. Their target grievance is proprietary software itself.
Legal issues
edit
The open-source movement has faced a number of legal challenges. Companies that manage open-source products have some difficulty securing their trademarks.
For example, the scope of "
implied license
" conjecture remains unclear and can compromise an enterprise's ability to patent productions made with open-source software. Another example is the case of companies offering add-ons for purchase; licensees who make additions to the open-source code that are similar to those for purchase may have immunity from patent suits.
In the court case "
Jacobsen v. Katzer
", the plaintiff sued the defendant for failing to put the required attribution notices in his modified version of the software, thereby violating license. The defendant claimed Artistic License in not adhering to the conditions of the software's use, but the wording of the attribution notice decided that this was not the case. "Jacobsen v Katzer" established open-source software's equality to proprietary software in the eyes of the law.
In a court case accusing Microsoft of being a monopoly, Linux and open-source software was introduced in court to prove that Microsoft had valid competitors and was grouped in with
Apple
13
There are resources available for those involved open-source projects in need of legal advice. The
Software Freedom Law Center
features a primer on open-source legal issues. International Free and Open Source Software Law Review offers peer-reviewed information for lawyers on free-software issues.
Formalization
edit
The
Open Source Initiative
(OSI) was instrumental in the formalization of the open-source movement. The OSI was founded by Eric Raymond and Bruce Perens in February 1998 with the purpose of providing general education and advocacy of the open-source label through the creation of the Open Source Definition that was based on the Debian Free Software Guidelines. The OSI has become one of the main supporters and advocators of the open-source movement.
In February 1998, the open-source movement was adopted, formalized, and spearheaded by the Open Source Initiative (OSI), an organization formed to market software "as something more amenable to commercial business use"
The OSI applied to register "Open Source" with the US Patent and Trademark Office, but was denied due to the term being generic and/or descriptive. Consequently, the OSI does not own the trademark "Open Source" in a national or international sense, although it does assert common-law trademark rights in the term.
The main tool they adopted for this was
The Open Source Definition
14
The open-source label was conceived at a strategy session that was held on February 3, 1998 in Palo Alto, California and on April 8 of the same year, the attendees of Tim O’Reilly's Free Software Summit voted to promote the use of the term
open source
Overall, the software developments that have come out of the open-source movement have not been unique to the computer-science field, but they have been successful in developing alternatives to propriety software. Members of the open-source community improve upon code and write programs that can rival much of the propriety software that is already available.
The rhetorical discourse used in open-source movements is now being broadened to include a larger group of non-expert users as well as advocacy organizations. Several organized groups such as the Creative Commons and global development agencies have also adopted the open-source concepts according to their own aims and for their own purposes.
15
The factors affecting the open-source movement's legal formalization are primarily based on recent political discussion over copyright, appropriation, and intellectual property.
16
Social structure of open source contribution teams
edit
Historically, researchers have characterized
open-source
contributors as a centralized, onion-shaped group.
17
The center of the onion consists of the core contributors who drive the project forward through large amounts of
code
and software design choices. The second-most layer are contributors who respond to
pull requests
and
bug
reports. The third-most layer out are contributors who mainly submit bug reports. The farthest out layer are those who watch the repository and users of the software that's generated. This model has been used in research to understand the lifecycle of open-source software, understand contributors to open-source software projects, how tools such as can help contributors at the various levels of involvement in the project, and further understand how the distributed nature of open source software may affect the productivity of developers.
18
19
20
Some researchers have disagreed with this model.
Crowston et al.
's work has found that some teams are much less centralized and follow a more distributed workflow pattern.
18
The authors report that there's a weak correlation between project size and centralization, with smaller projects being more centralized and larger projects showing less centralization. However, the authors only looked at bug reporting and fixing, so it remains unclear whether this pattern is only associated with bug finding and fixing or if centralization does become more distributed with size for every aspect of the open-source paradigm.
An understanding of a team's centralization versus distributed nature is important as it may inform tool design and aid new developers in understanding a team's dynamic. One concern with open-source development is the high turnover rate of developers, even among core contributors (those at the center of the "onion").
21
In order to continue an open-source project, new developers must continually join but must also have the necessary skill-set to contribute quality code to the project. Through a study of
GitHub
contribution on open-source projects, Middleton et al. found that the largest predictor of contributors becoming full-fledged members of an open-source team (moving to the "core" of the "onion") was whether they submitted and commented on pull requests. The authors then suggest that GitHub, as a tool, can aid in this process by supporting "checkbox" features on a team's open-source project that urge contributors to take part in these activities.
20
Youth engagement
edit
The open-source community has long recognized the importance of engaging younger generations to ensure the sustainability and innovation of open-source projects. However, concerns have been raised about the aging demographic of open source contributors and the challenges of attracting younger developers. In 2010, James Bottomley, a prominent
Linux
kernel
maintainer, observed the "graying" of the Linux kernel community, a trend that continues today.[Who can figure out and code, in future generations, with no dox], David Nalley, president of the
Apache Software Foundation
(ASF), emphasized that maintaining
legacy code
is often unappealing to younger developers, who prefer to work on new and innovative projects.
22
While contributing to open source projects can provide valuable experience in development, documentation, internationalization, and other areas, barriers to entry often make it difficult for newcomers, particularly younger individuals, to get involved. These challenges include technical, psychological, and motivational factors.
23
To address these challenges, initiatives like the
Linux Kernel Mentorship Program
aim to recruit and train new developers. The LFX Mentorship Program also seeks to sponsor and mentor the next generation of open source developers and leaders across various projects.
24
Motivations of programmers
edit
See also:
Motivations for online participation
Research has examined the motivations for programmers' participation in open-source development. A study presented at the 15th Annual Congress of the European Economic Association analyzed individual and organizational incentives for contributing unpaid programming work, noting that this form of "intellectual gift giving" challenges traditional economic models.
25
Several factors have been identified as potential motivations:
Altruism
: While altruistic motivations exist among some contributors, research suggests this factor has limitations as a primary explanation for the widespread participation in open-source projects.
citation needed
Some researchers question why similar voluntary contributions are not observed in other fields that might have greater public benefit, such as biotechnology.
25
Community collaboration and code improvement
: The collaborative online environment facilitates continuous software improvement through peer review and modification. Contributors benefit from others' testing, debugging, and code enhancement, creating a mutual benefit system that can result in higher-quality software.
25
Professional recognition
: While projects may not always highlight individual contributors, many platforms track and display contributor information. This visibility can provide professional recognition, career opportunities, and industry exposure. Notable technology companies including
Sun Microsystems
and
Netscape
were founded by individuals who began as open-source contributors.
25
Technical challenge and skill demonstration
: Some researchers have noted that programmers may approach complex problems as opportunities to demonstrate technical abilities to peers.
26
The competitive nature of open-source communities, where users can also be developers, may motivate participants to produce high-quality work to gain peer recognition.
27
Creative expression
: Research suggests that software development can provide personal satisfaction similar to artistic creation. The collaborative nature of open-source development may offer creative opportunities that differ from commercial software production environments.
28
Gender diversity of programmers
edit
See also:
Diversity in open-source software
The vast majority of programmers in open-source communities are male. In a 2006 study for the European Union on free and open-source software communities, researchers found that only 1.5% of all contributors are female.
29
Although women are generally underrepresented in computing, the percentage of women in tech professions is actually much higher, close to 25%.
30
This discrepancy suggests that female programmers are overall less likely than male programmers to participate in open-source projects.
Some research and interviews with members of open-source projects have described a male-dominated culture within open-source communities that can be unwelcoming or hostile towards females.
31
There are initiatives such as
Outreachy
that aim to support more women and other underrepresented gender identities to participate in open-source software. However, within the discussion forums of open-source projects the topic of gender diversity can be highly controversial and even inflammatory.
31
A central vision in open-source software is that because the software is built and maintained on the merit of individual code contributions, open-source communities should act as a meritocracy.
32
In a meritocracy, the importance of an individual in the community depends on the quality of their individual contributions and not demographic factors such as age, race, religion, or gender. Thus proposing changes to the community based on gender, for example, to make the community more inviting towards females, go against the ideal of a meritocracy by targeting certain programmers by gender and not based on their skill alone.
31
There is evidence that gender does impact a programmer's perceived merit in the community. A 2016 study identified the gender of over one million programmers on
GitHub
, by linking the programmer's
GitHub
account to their other social media accounts.
33
Between male and female programmers, the researchers found that female programmers were actually
more
likely
to have their pull requests accepted into the project than male programmers, however only when the female had a gender-neutral profile. When females had profiles with a name or image that identified them as female, they were less likely than male programmers to have their pull requests accepted. Another study in 2015 found that of open-source projects on GitHub, gender diversity was a significant positive predictor of a team's productivity, meaning that open-source teams with a more even mix of different genders tended to be more highly productive.
32
Many projects have adopted the
Contributor Covenant
code of conduct in an attempt to address concerns of harassment of minority developers. Anyone found breaking the code of conduct can be disciplined and ultimately removed from the project.
In order to avoid offense to minorities many software projects have started to mandate the use of
inclusive language
and terminology.
34
Evidence of open-source adoption
edit
Main article:
Free and open-source software § Adoption
Libraries are using open-source software to develop information as well as library services. The purpose of open source is to provide a software that is cheaper, reliable and has better quality. The one feature that makes this software so sought after is that it is free. Libraries in particular benefit from this movement because of the resources it provides. They also promote the same ideas of learning and understanding new information through the resources of other people. Open source allows a sense of community. It is an invitation for anyone to provide information about various topics. The open-source tools even allow libraries to create web-based catalogs. According to the IT source there are various library programs that benefit from this.
35
Government agencies and infrastructure software
— Government Agencies are utilizing open-source infrastructure software, like the Linux operating system and the Apache Web-server into software, to manage information.
36
In 2005, a new government lobby was launched under the name National Center for Open Source Policy and Research (NCOSPR) "a non-profit organization promoting the use of open source software solutions within government IT enterprises."
37
Open-source movement in the military
— The military has explored open-source software for potential operational benefits. Open-source software allows modification by multiple contributors, potentially offering cost-effective development and rapid customization capabilities. Military interest stems from the possibility of increased development speed and operational flexibility. However, security considerations arise due to the open nature of code modification and access. The
Military Open Source Software Working Group
, established in 2009 with over 120 military members, was organized to facilitate collaboration between software developers and contractors from military organizations. The group aimed to explore opportunities for code reuse and collaborative development in military applications.
38
Open source in education
— Colleges and organizations use software predominantly online to educate their students. Open-source technology is being adopted by many institutions because it can save these institutions from paying companies to provide them with these administrative software systems. One of the first major colleges to adopt an open-source system was Colorado State University in 2009 with many others following after that. Colorado State Universities system was produced by the
Kuali
Foundation who has become a major player in open-source administrative systems. The Kuali Foundation defines itself as a group of organizations that aims to "build and sustain open-source software for higher education, by higher education."
39
There are many other examples of open-source instruments being used in education other than the Kuali Foundation as well.
citation needed
"For educators, The Open Source Movement allowed access to software that could be used in teaching students how to apply the theories they were learning".
40
With open networks and software, teachers are able to share lessons, lectures, and other course materials within a community. OpenTechComm is a program that is dedicated to "open to access, open to use, and open to edit — textbook or pedagogical resource that teachers of technical and professional communication courses at every level can rely on to craft free offerings to their students."
41
As stated earlier, access to programs like this would be much more cost efficient for educational departments.
Open source in healthcare
— Created in June 2009 by the nonprofit eHealthNigeria, the open-source software
OpenMRS
is used to document health care in Nigeria. The use of this software began in Kaduna, Nigeria to serve the purpose of public health. OpenMRS manages features such as alerting health care workers when patients show warning signs for conditions and records births and deaths daily, among other features. The success of this software is caused by its ease of use for those first being introduced to the technology, compared to more complex proprietary healthcare software available in first world countries. This software is community-developed and can be used freely by anyone, characteristic of open-source applications. So far, OpenMRS is being used in Rwanda, Mozambique, Haiti, India, China, and the Philippines.
42
The impact of open source in healthcare is also observed by Apelon Inc, the "leading provider of terminology and data interoperability solutions". Recently, its Distributed Terminology System (Open DTS) began supporting the open-source MySQL database system. This essentially allows for open-source software to be used in healthcare, lessening the dependence on expensive proprietary healthcare software. Due to open-source software, the healthcare industry has available a free open-source solution to implement healthcare standards. Not only does open source benefit healthcare economically, but the lesser dependence on proprietary software allows for easier integration of various systems, regardless of the developer.
43
Companies
edit
See also:
Business models for open-source software
IBM
edit
This section
needs expansion
. You can help by
adding missing information
August 2020
Originally, IBM was not the company that branched out to any means of open source software. They upheld into believing that intellectual property along with other privatized means of software around the 1990s.
44
From a citation, it wasn't until IBM was challenged by the evolving competitive market, specifically from Microsoft, that they decided to invest their resources more into open source software. Since then, their focus shifted more on customer service and a more robust software support.
44
IBM
has been a leading proponent of the
Open Source Initiative
, and began supporting
Linux
in 1998.
45
The Eclipse IDE that IBM released as open source
As another example, IBM had decided to make the Eclipse IDE(integrated development environment) open-source causing other companies to release their other IDEs due to Eclipse's popularity and outreach to the market.
46
Microsoft
edit
Main article:
Microsoft and open source
Prior to 2008,
Microsoft
maintained an adversarial relationship towards open-source software.
47
The company's anti-open-source sentiment was enforced by former CEO
Steve Ballmer
, who referred to Linux, a widely used open-source software, as a "cancer that attaches itself ... to everything it touches."
48
Microsoft also threatened Linux that they would charge royalties for violating 235 of their patents.
In 2004, Microsoft lost a European Union court case,
49
and lost the appeal in 2007,
50
and their further appeal in 2012:
51
being convicted of abusing its dominant position. Specifically they had withheld inter-operability information with the open-source
Samba (software)
project, which can be run on many platforms and aims to "removing barriers to interoperability".
quote needs citation
In 2008, however, Sam Ramji, the then head of open-source-software strategy in Microsoft, began working closely with Bill Gates to develop a pro-open-source attitude within the software industry as well as Microsoft itself. Ramji, before leaving the company in 2009, built Microsoft's familiarity and involvement with open source, which is evident in Microsoft's contributions of open-source code to
Microsoft Azure
among other projects. These contributions marked a significant departure from Microsoft's historical reliance on proprietary development models.
52
Microsoft's strategic shift toward open source reflected a response to the growing industry-wide adoption of these technologies and an effort to integrate with the open-source ecosystem.
53
See also
edit
Free and open-source software portal
Mass collaboration
Digital rights
List of free and open-source software packages
Open-design movement
Open-source appropriate technology
Open-source hardware
Sharing economy
Peer production
The Cathedral and the Bazaar
, a book by
Eric S. Raymond
on software engineering methods
References
edit
Levine, Sheen S.; Prietula, M. J. (2013). "Open Collaboration for Innovation: Principles and Performance".
Organization Science
25
(5):
1414–
1433.
arXiv
1406.7541
doi
10.1287/orsc.2013.0872
S2CID
6583883
SSRN
1096442
Wyllys, R.E. (2000).
Overview of the Open-Source Movement
Archived
2016-03-16 at the
Wayback Machine
. Retrieved November 22, 2009, from The University of Texas at Austin Graduate School of Library & Information Science
Warger, T.
(2002)
The Open Source Movement
Archived
2011-07-17 at the
Wayback Machine
. Retrieved November 22, 2009, from Education Resources Information Center
Tiemann, Michael
(19 September 2006).
"History of the OSI"
Open Source Initiative
Archived
from the original on 1 October 2002
. Retrieved
23 August
2008
A Brief History of the Open-Source Movement
Archived
2011-04-11 at the
Wayback Machine
. Sloanreview.mit.edu (2011-11-18). Retrieved on 2011-11-30.
History of the OSI | Open Source Initiative
Archived
2002-10-01 at the
Wayback Machine
. Opensource.org. Retrieved on 2011-11-30.
Weber, Steven. The Success of Open Source. The President and Fellows of Harvard College. 2004. Print pg.20–28.
ISBN
978-0-674-01858-7
This whole paragraph is referenced to Steven Weber
Tennant, D. (2008, August 11). Standing on Principle. Computerworld, p. 4. Retrieved from Business Source Premier database.
Taft, D. K. (2009, November 3).
Microsoft Recommits to $100k Apache Contribution at ApacheCon
Archived
2023-11-20 at the
Wayback Machine
(QUOTE:
"Sorry.
This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine.")
Retrieved May 8, 2020 from eWeek
Elliott, M. S.; Scacchi, Walt (2008). "Mobilization of software developers: The free software movement".
Information Technology & People
21
(1): 4.
doi
10.1108/09593840810860315
Lerner, Josh; Tirole, Jean (March 2000).
"The simple Economics of Open Source"
(PDF)
. Cambridge, MA.: National Bureau of Economic Research.
CiteSeerX
10.1.1.145.3577
Archived
(PDF)
from the original on 15 December 2017
. Retrieved
10 June
2015
{{
cite journal
}}
Cite journal requires
|journal=
help
Stallman, R. M. (2007).
Why "Free Software" is better than "Open Source"
Archived
2021-03-27 at the
Wayback Machine
. Retrieved November 22, 2009, from GNU.org
"United States v. Microsoft Corp., 84 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D.D.C. 1999)"
Justia Law
. Retrieved
10 October
2025
The Open Source Definition | Open Source Initiative
Archived
2007-06-07 at the
Wayback Machine
. Opensource.org. Retrieved on 2011-11-30.
Sullivan, John L. (2011). "Free, Open Source Software Advocacy as a Social Justice Movement: The Expansion of F/OSS Movement Discourse in the 21st Century".
Journal of Information Technology & Politics
(3):
223–
239.
doi
10.1080/19331681.2011.592080
S2CID
144013228
Ceraso, A.; Pruchnic, J. (2011).
"Introduction: Open source culture and aesthetics"
Criticism
53
(3): 337.
doi
10.1353/crt.2011.0026
S2CID
31800586
. Archived from
the original
on 22 September 2017.
Nakakoji, Kumiyo; Yamamoto, Yasuhiro; Nishinaka, Yoshiyuki; Kishida, Kouichi; Ye, Yunwen (2002). "Evolution patterns of open-source software systems and communities".
Proceedings of the international workshop on Principles of software evolution - IWPSE '02
. p. 76.
doi
10.1145/512035.512055
ISBN
978-1-58113-545-9
S2CID
15341686
Crowston, Kevin
; Howison, James (7 February 2005).
"The social structure of free and open source software development"
First Monday
doi
10.5210/fm.v10i2.1207
Sheoran, Jyoti; Blincoe, Kelly; Kalliamvakou, Eirini; Damian, Daniela; Ell, Jordan (2014). "Understanding 'watchers' on GitHub".
Proceedings of the 11th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories - MSR 2014
. pp.
336–
339.
doi
10.1145/2597073.2597114
ISBN
978-1-4503-2863-0
S2CID
11496776
Middleton, Justin; Murphy-Hill, Emerson; Green, Demetrius; Meade, Adam; Mayer, Roger; White, David; McDonald, Steve (2018). "Which contributions predict whether developers are accepted into github teams".
Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories
. pp.
403–
413.
doi
10.1145/3196398.3196429
ISBN
978-1-4503-5716-6
S2CID
13695100
Robles, G; J. M. Gonzalez-Barahona; I. Herraiz (2009). "Evolution of the core team of developers in libre software projects".
Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories
167–
170.
Vaughan-Nichols, Steven J. (15 July 2024).
"The graying open source community needs fresh blood"
The Register
. Retrieved
17 February
2025
Proven, Liam (14 February 2025).
"Why are there so many graybeards in FOSS?"
The Register
. Retrieved
17 February
2025
"LFX Mentorship"
Linux Foundation
. Retrieved
17 February
2025
Lerner, Josh; Jean Tirole (9 May 2001). "The open source movement: Key research questions".
European Economic Review
45
4–
6):
819–
826.
doi
10.1016/S0014-2921(01)00124-6
Greenspun, Philip.
"Managing Software Engineers"
Archived
from the original on 9 October 2021
. Retrieved
7 February
2012
Yunwen Ye; Kishida, K. (2003). "Toward an understanding of the motivation of open source software developers".
25th International Conference on Software Engineering, 2003. Proceedings
. pp.
419–
429.
doi
10.1109/ICSE.2003.1201220
ISBN
0-7695-1877-X
S2CID
1476378
Bonaccorsi, Andrea; Cristina Rossi (2003).
"Why Open Source software can succeed"
(PDF)
Open Source Software Development
32
(7):
1243–
1258.
doi
10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00051-9
hdl
10419/89290
Archived
(PDF)
from the original on 19 September 2020
. Retrieved
14 December
2019
Nafus, Dawn, James Leach, and Bernhard Krieger. "Gender: Integrated report of findings."
FLOSSPOLS, Deliverable D
16 (2006).
"Women in tech: The facts"
(PDF)
. Archived from the original on 14 May 2021
. Retrieved
19 April
2021
{{
cite web
}}
: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (
link
Nafus, Dawn (1 June 2012). "
'Patches don't have gender': What is not open in open source software".
New Media & Society
14
(4):
669–
683.
doi
10.1177/1461444811422887
S2CID
206727320
Vasilescu, Bogdan; Posnett, Daryl; Ray, Baishakhi; Van Den Brand, Mark G.J.; Serebrenik, Alexander; Devanbu, Premkumar; Filkov, Vladimir (2015). "Gender and Tenure Diversity in GitHub Teams".
Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
. pp.
3789–
3798.
doi
10.1145/2702123.2702549
ISBN
978-1-4503-3145-6
S2CID
11705263
Terrell, Josh; Kofink, Andrew; Middleton, Justin; Rainear, Clarissa; Murphy-Hill, Emerson; Parnin, Chris; Stallings, Jon (1 May 2017).
"Gender differences and bias in open source: pull request acceptance of women versus men"
PeerJ Computer Science
e111.
doi
10.7717/peerj-cs.111
"Inclusive Naming Initiative"
Archived
from the original on 3 February 2022
. Retrieved
22 October
2021
Poynder, Richard (2001).
"The Open Source Movement"
Information Today
(9).
Archived
from the original on 27 May 2011
. Retrieved
20 January
2011
Moore, John (14 August 2008).
"A starring role for open source? -"
FCW
Archived
from the original on 19 April 2021
. Retrieved
19 April
2021
Preimesberger, Chris (14 October 2005).
"Open Source Movement Gets a Lobby"
eWEEK
Archived
from the original on 20 November 2023
. Retrieved
19 April
2021
Toon, John (2009).
"Open Source Movement May Accelerate Military Software Development"
Georgia Tech Research Institute
Archived
from the original on 11 July 2017
. Retrieved
21 December
2011
"About the Kuali Community | Kuali Foundation"
Kuali Foundation
. 12 June 2010.
Archived
from the original on 12 June 2010
. Retrieved
14 September
2024
St.Amant & Ballentine 2011 p.343
Still, Brian (2010).
"A Dozen Years after Open Source's 1998 Birth, It's Time for OpenTechComm"
Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
40
(2):
219–
228.
doi
10.2190/TW.40.2.g
. Retrieved
29 January
2025
eHealthNigeria. (2012).
eHealthNigeria: FAQs
Archived
2012-01-04 at the
Wayback Machine
. Retrieved Feb 4, 2012
"Apelon Announces Availability of a Completely Open Source Terminology Management Solution"
(Press release). Apelon. 17 January 2012. Archived from
the original
on 2 March 2022
. Retrieved
19 April
2021
Munga, Neeshal; Fogwill, Thomas; Williams, Quentin (12 October 2009).
"The adoption of open source software in business models: A Red Hat and IBM case study"
Proceedings of the 2009 Annual Research Conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists
. SAICSIT '09. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. pp.
112–
121.
doi
10.1145/1632149.1632165
ISBN
978-1-60558-643-4
"IBM launches biggest Linux lineup ever"
. IBM. 2 March 1999. Archived from
the original
on 10 November 1999.
Fitzgerald, Brian (2006).
"The Transformation of Open Source Software"
MIS Quarterly
30
(3):
587–
598.
doi
10.2307/25148740
ISSN
0276-7783
JSTOR
25148740
Parloff, Roger.
"Microsoft takes on the free world"
Fortune
. Retrieved
10 April
2026
"Microsoft CEO takes launch break with the Sun-Times"
Chicago Sun-Times
. 1 June 2001.
Archived
from the original on 8 November 2001
. Retrieved
27 June
2021
"Groklaw.net – The EU Microsoft Decision – December 2004"
. Archived from the original on 22 October 2014
. Retrieved
13 October
2014
"Groklaw.net – EU Ct. of 1st Instance: Microsoft Abused its Dominant Position – Updated – September 2007"
. Archived from the original on 24 September 2015
. Retrieved
13 October
2014
"Groklaw.net Microsoft Loses Its EU Appeal"
. Archived from the original on 22 October 2014
. Retrieved
13 October
2014
Metz, Cade (30 January 2012).
"Meet Bill Gates, the Man Who Changed Open Source Software"
Wired
Archived
from the original on 19 April 2021
. Retrieved
19 April
2021
Metz, Cade (4 November 2011).
"How Microsoft Learned to Stop Worrying and (Almost) Love Open Source"
Wired
Archived
from the original on 25 October 2021
. Retrieved
19 April
2021
Further reading
edit
Ljungberg, J (2000). "Open source movements as a model for organising".
European Journal of Information Systems
(4):
208–
216.
doi
10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000373
Meeker, Heather (2008).
The Open Source Alternative: Understanding Risks and Leveraging Opportunities
John Wiley & Sons
ISBN
978-0-470-19495-9
Schrape, Jan-Felix (2019). "Open-source projects as incubators of innovation. From niche phenomenon to integral part of the industry".
Convergence
25
(3):
409–
427.
doi
10.1177/1354856517735795
S2CID
149165772
Software Freedom Law Center (3 March 2008).
"A Legal Issues Primer for Open Source and Free Software Projects"
The Open Source Movement (24 October 2010).
"The Open Source Movement"
. Archived from
the original
on 29 July 2013
. Retrieved
25 April
2020
Rosen, Lawrence (July 2009).
"Bad facts make good law: The Jacobsen case and Open Source"
International Free and Open Source Software Law Review
(1).
Software Freedom Law Center, Inc
27–
32.
Goettsch, Kerry D. (2003).
"SCO Group v. IBM: The Future of Open Source Software"
Journal of Law, Technology & Policy
: 581.
Wayner, P. (2000).
Free for all: how Linux and the free software movement undercut the high-tech titans
. Harperbusiness.
ISBN
978-0-06-662050-3
Kirk St. Amant (2011).
"Open Source Software, Access, and Content creation in the global economy"
James McIntyre (31 January 2012).
"The Online Revolution"
Scottish Socialist Youth
. Archived from
the original
on 18 July 2013.
Weber, Steven (2005).
The Success of Open Source
. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press
ISBN
9780674018587
Carillo, Kevin; Okoli, Chitu (2008).
"The Open Source Movement: A Revolution in Software Development"
Journal of Computer Information Systems
49
(2):
1–
9.
doi
10.1080/08874417.2009.11646043
(inactive 12 July 2025).
{{
cite journal
}}
: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of July 2025 (
link
Tozzi, Christopher (2017).
For Fun and Profit: A History of the Free and Open Source Software Revolution
MIT Press
ISBN
9780262341172
External links
edit
LFX Mentorship Program
by the
Linux Foundation
Free and open-source software
General
Alternative terms for free software
Comparison of open-source and closed-source software
Comparison of source-code-hosting facilities
Free software
Free software project directories
Gratis versus libre
Long-term support
Open-source software
Open-source software development
Outline
Timeline
Software
packages
Audio
Bioinformatics
Codecs
Configuration management
Drivers
Graphics
Wireless
Health
Mathematics
Office suites
Operating systems
Routing
Television
Video games
Web applications
E-commerce
Android apps
iOS apps
Commercial
Formerly proprietary
Formerly open-source
Community
Free software movement
History
Open-source-software movement
Events
Advocacy
Organisations
Free Software Movement of India
Free Software Foundation
Licenses
AFL
Apache
APSL
Artistic
Beerware
BSD
Creative Commons
CDDL
EPL
Free Software Foundation
GNU GPL
GNU AGPL
GNU LGPL
ISC
MIT
MPL
Python
Python Software Foundation License
Shared Source Initiative
Sleepycat
Unlicense
WTFPL
zlib
Types and
standards
Comparison of licenses
Contributor License Agreement
Copyleft
Debian Free Software Guidelines
Definition of Free Cultural Works
Free license
The Free Software Definition
The Open Source Definition
Open-source license
Permissive software license
Public domain
Challenges
Digital rights management
License proliferation
Mozilla software rebranding
Proprietary device drivers
Proprietary firmware
Proprietary software
SCO/Linux controversies
Software patents
Software security
Tivoization
Trusted Computing
Related
topics
Forking
GNU Manifesto
Microsoft Open Specification Promise
Open-core model
Open-source hardware
Shared Source Initiative
Source-available software
The Cathedral and the Bazaar
Revolution OS
Portal
Category
Retrieved from "
Category
Open-source movement
Hidden categories:
Webarchive template wayback links
CS1 errors: missing periodical
CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown
CS1: unfit URL
Articles with short description
Short description is different from Wikidata
Use dmy dates from September 2025
Pages using infobox mapframe with missing coordinates
Articles using infobox templates with no data rows
All articles with dead external links
Articles with dead external links from August 2025
All articles with unsourced statements
Articles with unsourced statements from March 2018
Articles with unsourced statements from April 2021
Articles to be expanded from August 2020
All articles to be expanded
Articles with unsourced quotes
CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of July 2025
Open-source software movement
Add topic