By design, open source software licenses promote collaboration and sharing because they permit other people to make modifications to source code and incorporate those changes into their own projects.
They encourage computer programmers to access, view, and modify open source software whenever they like, as long as they let others do the same when they share their work.
Open source technology and open source thinking both benefit programmers and non-programmers. Because early inventors built much of the Internet itself on open source technologies—like the Linux operating system and the Apache Web server application —anyone using the Internet today benefits from open source software.
Every time computer users view web pages, check email, chat with friends, stream music online, or play multiplayer video games, their computers, mobile phones, or gaming consoles connect to a global network of computers using open source software to route and transmit their data to the "local" devices they have in front of them.
The computers that do all this important work are typically located in faraway places that users don't actually see or can't physically access—which is why some people call these computers "remote computers.
More and more, people rely on remote computers when performing tasks they might otherwise perform on their local devices. For example, they may use online word processing, email management, and image editing software that they don't install and run on their personal computers. Instead, they simply access these programs on remote computers by using a Web browser or mobile phone application.
When they do this, they're engaged in "remote computing. Some people call remote computing "cloud computing," because it involves activities like storing files, sharing photos, or watching videos that incorporate not only local devices but also a global network of remote computers that form an "atmosphere" around them.
Cloud computing is an increasingly important aspect of everyday life with Internet-connected devices. Some cloud computing applications, like Google Apps, are proprietary.
Others, like ownCloud and Nextcloud , are open source. Cloud computing applications run "on top" of additional software that helps them operate smoothly and efficiently, so people will often say that software running "underneath" cloud computing applications acts as a " platform " for those applications. Cloud computing platforms can be open source or closed source.
OpenStack is an example of an open source cloud computing platform. Many people prefer open source software because they have more control over that kind of software. They can examine the code to make sure it's not doing anything they don't want it to do, and they can change parts of it they don't like. Users who aren't programmers also benefit from open source software, because they can use this software for any purpose they wish—not merely the way someone else thinks they should.
Other people like open source software because it helps them become better programmers. Because open source code is publicly accessible, students can easily study it as they learn to make better software. Students can also share their work with others, inviting comment and critique, as they develop their skills. When people discover mistakes in programs' source code, they can share those mistakes with others to help them avoid making those same mistakes themselves.
Some people prefer open source software because they consider it more secure and stable than proprietary software. Because anyone can view and modify open source software, someone might spot and correct errors or omissions that a program's original authors might have missed. Sign Up.
Equality Character Day Skin. Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.
Barack Obama. Change Waiting Time Wait. Start by doing what's necessary; then do what's possible; and suddenly you are doing the impossible. Francis of Assisi. Inspirational You Impossible Doing. The most important thing is to try and inspire people so that they can be great in whatever they want to do. Microsoft does this with Visual Studio, for example.
If these executables fully correspond to the released sources, they qualify as open source but not as free software. However, in that case users can compile the source code to make and distribute free executables.
Finally, and most important in practice, many products containing computers check signatures on their executable programs to block users from installing different executables; only one privileged company can make executables that can run in the device or can access its full capabilities. Even if the executable is made from free source code, and nominally carries a free license, the users cannot run modified versions of it, so the executable is de-facto nonfree.
The criteria for open source are concerned solely with the licensing of the source code. Thus, these nonfree executables, when made from source code such as Linux that is open source and free, are open source but not free. An unambiguous and correct term would be better, if it didn't present other problems. Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of their own.
It is not the same; it is a little looser in some respects. Nonetheless, their definition agrees with our definition in most cases.
It includes many programs that are neither free nor open source. I think he simply applied the conventions of the English language to come up with a meaning for the term. OSS is software for which the source code is freely and publicly available, though the specific licensing agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do with that code. The New York Times ran an article that stretched the meaning of the term to refer to user beta testing—letting a few users try an early version and give confidential feedback—which proprietary software developers have practiced for decades.
The term has even been stretched to include designs for equipment that are published without a patent. Open source supporters try to deal with this by pointing to their official definition, but that corrective approach is less effective for them than it is for us. So there is no succinct way to explain and justify its official definition. That makes for worse confusion.
The only thing these activities have in common is that they somehow invite people to participate. At worst, it has become a vacuous buzzword. Radical groups in the s had a reputation for factionalism: some organizations split because of disagreements on details of strategy, and the two daughter groups treated each other as enemies despite having similar basic goals and values.
The right wing made much of this and used it to criticize the entire left. Some try to disparage the free software movement by comparing our disagreement with open source to the disagreements of those radical groups. They have it backwards. We disagree with the open source camp on the basic goals and values, but their views and ours lead in many cases to the same practical behavior—such as developing free software.
As a result, people from the free software movement and the open source camp often work together on practical projects such as software development. It is remarkable that such different philosophical views can so often motivate different people to participate in the same projects.
Nonetheless, there are situations where these fundamentally different views lead to very different actions. The idea of open source is that allowing users to change and redistribute the software will make it more powerful and reliable. But this is not guaranteed. Developers of proprietary software are not necessarily incompetent. Sometimes they produce a program that is powerful and reliable, even though it does not respect the users' freedom.