Talk:Proprietary software

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Proprietary software article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 90 days

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 January 2024. The result of the discussion was keep.

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as High-importance).

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Proprietary software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081028213407/http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/cases/decisions/37792/en.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/cases/decisions/37792/en.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Got some SUN vs. MS PDF, okay. –Be..anyone 💩 18:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't GNU software FOSS?

@Ahunt: changed the opening from

Proprietary software, also known as non-free software, or closed-source software, is computer software for which the software's publisher or another person restrict's the user's freedom to run, edit, contribute to, or share the software. It may restrict ^[1] patent rights.^[2]^[1]

to

Proprietary software, also known as non-free software, or closed-source software, is computer software for which the software's publisher or another person retains intellectual property rights, usually copyright of the source code,^[1] but sometimes patent rights.^[2]^[1]

That excludes all software licensed under, e.g., GPL2, which rely on copyleft. The second reference cites documents^[3]^[4] that contradict user:Ahunt's definition.

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was merely to restore the longstanding existing text. The IP that made that change is a known POV spammer and the wording they introduced failed WP:NPOV. - Ahunt (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the provenance of the IP, that text contradicts both common usage and at least one of the cited sources.

BTW, I am by no means a fan of RMS, and am happy to use well written, well documented and well supported proprietary software. But by no stretch of the imagination is GNU proprietary. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The intro does not mention GNU or the GPL, so I think you are going to have to explain how you came to that conclusion. - Ahunt (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GNU software, and other software licensed under GPL. is "computer software for which the software's publisher or another person retains intellectual property rights"; copyleft wouldn't work without that. The fact that it doesn't explicitly mention GNU does not alter the fact that the description matches it. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well that existing wording just requires a small adjustment then. - Ahunt (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't address the issue; under GPL the author retains all rights. The difference between proprietary and open source is in license terms, except for public domain, where there are no licemce terms or intellectual property rights Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well then: your turn to propose some better wording to expaln what proprietary software is. - Ahunt (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samerly mendez 191.156.180.229 (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about

Proprietary software, also known as non-free software, or closed-source software, is computer software for which the software's publisher, or another person holding intellectual property rights, usually copyright of the source and object code but sometimes patent or trade secret rights, restricts the user's freedom to run, edit, contribute to, or share the software.^[5]^[6]

with this in the references section:

AAUG: Brendan Scott (March 2003). "Why Free Software's Long Run TCO must be lower". The Journal of AAUG, Inc. 24 (1). AUUG, Inc. Retrieved 29 June 2017.

I've filled in some missing data in the citations. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It violates WP:NPOV. That reads like the writer is trying to convince readers that proprietary software is bad. I am not sure that citing refs touting free software is the way to get to a neutral point of view here, since it is clearly biased on the subject. (Disclosure: I only run free software on my computers, refuse all proprietary software and actually run a free sofware advocacy program for a a local organization, but we are here to write a Wikipedia article, not advocate.) How about more like:

Proprietary software, also known as closed-source software, is computer software for which the software's rights holder, controls the copyright of the source and object code. There may also be patent or trade secret rights that limit use of the software.^[7]^[6]

the "also known as closed-source software," is an improvement, but the author GPL software still controls copyright of the source code and object code.71.135.5.88 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Saraswati Experts. "2.5.3". COMPUTER SCIENCE WITH C++. Saraswati House Pvt Ltd. p. 1.27. ISBN 978-93-5199-877-8. Retrieved 29 June 2017.
^ ^a ^b AUUG, Inc. (March 2003). "Chapter 1. Definitions". AUUGN. AUUG, Inc. p. 51. Retrieved 29 June 2017.
^ "What is free software?". Free Software Foundation.
^ "The Open Source Definition (Annotated)".
^ Rita Sahoo; Gagan Sahoo (2016). "2.5.3". COMPUTER SCIENCE WITH C++. New Saraswati House (India) Pvt Ltd. p. 1.27. ISBN 978-93-5199-877-8. Retrieved 29 June 2017.
^ ^a ^b AAUG, p. 51, Why Free Software's Long Run TCO must be lower].
^ Rita Sahoo; Gagan Sahoo (2016). "2.5.3". COMPUTER SCIENCE WITH C++. New Saraswati House (India) Pvt Ltd. p. 1.27. ISBN 978-93-5199-877-8. Retrieved 29 June 2017.

Merge from Proprietary firmware

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was…no merge of these articles.

There doesn't seem to be a reason to have both articles. I will do the merge within a year if there are no objections. Anyone can feel free to do it sooner if it seems like a good idea. ~Kvng (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I disagree. Proprietary firmware should have it’s own article for the purposes of clarification and emphasis. The concept of proprietary firmware is not commonly understood and requires it’s own article. Junius Fertilis (talk) 12:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where would you put Licensed Internal Code (LIC) such as Coupling Facility Control Code (CFCC) and millicode? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this. They are distinct subjects. Firmware is also a distinct article from software. This subject meets the WP:GNG at the moment. If anything, I was planning to create a counterpart open source firmware soon. PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Firmware (read only information/software for hardware) is different from Software Jeweldation (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it isn't. Most firmware these days does not involve horizontal microcode. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We're far from a consensus to do this merge but let me summarize where we are and expand on my proposal. Firmware is a subset of software (according to Firmware) so proprietary firmware and proprietary software are closely related (the proprietary part is identical). It is possible to cover multiple closely related topics in a single article. This often improves the reader experience and definitely improves the editing experience as there is reduced duplication of content. ~Kvng (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, on the grounds that there are special features of Proprietary firmware, on the grounds that it is generally harder to avoid/evade; the article do need to be better linked, perhaps with a hatenot on Proprietary software. Klbrain (talk) 10:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that by now a consensus has been established. I cannot close it because of my involvement in voting, but can someone else? Thanks. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Firmware and Software are distinct enough to keep the articles seperate. FusionSub (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Kvng: Currently, various users have opposed this change and nobody is in favor. I think this merge request should be closed. PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, looks that way. See WP:CLOSE for guidance. ~Kvng (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Joyous! | Talk 19:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Proprietary saftware" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Proprietary saftware and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 22#Proprietary saftware until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free isn't just proprietary

For this reason, it is also known as non-free software or closed-source software.

This is not how "non-free" is defined: non-free means that you have failed the definition of free software in any way, such as by requiring non-commercial use (violates "freedom to use for any purpose" and analogous principles). For example, Aladdin Free Public License is classified non-free by all 4 organizations in the infobox. Non-free maps to the "Non-Open Licenses" part on the table.

And proprietary also covers more than "closed-source". Source-available software can retain the intellectual monopoly (hence proprietary), but they let you look, so it's not closed. Artoria 2e5 🌉 06:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I bet I can make this better somehow. Gotta be BOLD! Artoria 2e5 🌉 06:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Privative software" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Privative software has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 15 § Privative software until a consensus is reached. Is la🏳️‍⚧ 11:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Privative software" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Privative software has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 15 § Privative software until a consensus is reached. Is la🏳️‍⚧ 11:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

love 103.110.183.83 (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[Experts-1] Saraswati Experts. "2.5.3". COMPUTER SCIENCE WITH C++. Saraswati House Pvt Ltd. p. 1.27. ISBN 978-93-5199-877-8. Retrieved 29 June 2017.

[Felix_AguilarInc.2003-2] AUUG, Inc. (March 2003). "Chapter 1. Definitions". AUUGN. AUUG, Inc. p. 51. Retrieved 29 June 2017.

[3] "What is free software?". Free Software Foundation.

[4] "The Open Source Definition (Annotated)".

[5] Rita Sahoo; Gagan Sahoo (2016). "2.5.3". COMPUTER SCIENCE WITH C++. New Saraswati House (India) Pvt Ltd. p. 1.27. ISBN 978-93-5199-877-8. Retrieved 29 June 2017.

[FOOTNOTEAAUG51[httpsbooksgooglecombooksidC55YaWmDBiACpgPA51_Why_Free_Software's_Long_Run_TCO_must_be_lower]]-6] AAUG, p. 51, Why Free Software's Long Run TCO must be lower].

[7] Rita Sahoo; Gagan Sahoo (2016). "2.5.3". COMPUTER SCIENCE WITH C++. New Saraswati House (India) Pvt Ltd. p. 1.27. ISBN 978-93-5199-877-8. Retrieved 29 June 2017.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]