J Mark Lytle:Microsoft denies NSA backdoor in Windows 7.In:techradar.com.22.November 2009,archiviertvomOriginal(nicht mehr online verfügbar)am14.September 2012;abgerufen am 20.Juli 2025(englisch):„US National Security Agency did, however, work on the new OS“
Jaijit Bhattacharya:Technology In Government. Hrsg.: Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management. GIFT publishing, New Delhi 2006, ISBN 978-81-903397-4-2, S.25 (englisch, google.de).
Eric S. Raymond:Goodbye, “free software”; hello, “open source”.8.Februar 1998,abgerufen am 13.August 2008(englisch):„After the Netscape announcement broke in January I did a lot of thinking about the next phase – the serious push to get ‘free software’ accepted in the mainstream corporate world. And I realized we have a serious problem with ‘free software’ itself. Specifically, we have a problem with the term ‘free software’, itself, not the concept. I’ve become convinced that the term has to go.“
Kevin Crowston, Kangning Wei, James Howison, Andrea Wiggins:Free/Libre open-source software development: What we know and what we do not know. Hrsg.: ACM. Band44, Nr.2. ACM Computing Surveys, ISSN0360-0300, S.7:13, doi:10.1145/2089125.2089127 (englisch): “For example, Bonaccorsi and Rossi [2006] found that firms are motivated to be involved with FLOSS because it allows smaller firms to innovate, because “many eyes” assist them in software development, and because of the quality and reliability of FLOSS, with the ideological fight for free software at the bottom of the list.”
Kevin Crowston, Kangning Wei, James Howison, Andrea Wiggins:Free/Libre open-source software development: What we know and what we do not know. Hrsg.: ACM. Band44, Nr.2. ACM Computing Surveys, ISSN0360-0300, S.7:23, doi:10.1145/2089125.2089127 (englisch): “For example, based on 75 FLOSS projects, Capra et al. [2008] reported a high degree of openness in governance practices leads to higher software quality.”
GNU General Public License Version 3 – Conveying Non-Source Forms.In:gnu.org.29.Juni 2007,abgerufen am 20.Juli 2025(englisch):„(1)a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2)access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.“
Freie Software verkaufen.In:gnu.org.17.Juni 2015,abgerufen am 17.Juni 2015:„Hohe oder niedrige Preise und die GNU GPL – […] die GNU GPL verpflichtet, den Quellcode auf weitere Anfrage bereitzustellen. Ohne eine Begrenzung des Preises für den Quellcode wäre es ihnen möglich einen Preis festzulegen, der für jedermann zu hoch zu bezahlen wäre –wie eine Milliarde Euro– und somit vorgeben den Quellcode freizugeben, obwohl sie ihn in Wahrheit verbergen. Darum müssen wir in diesem Fall den Preis für den Quellcode begrenzen, um die Freiheit der Nutzer zu gewährleisten.“
Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses – Is GPLv3 compatible with GPLv2?In:gnu.org.Abgerufen am 3.Juni 2014(englisch):„No. Some of the requirements in GPLv3, such as the requirement to provide Installation Information, do not exist in GPLv2. As a result, the licenses are not compatible: if you tried to combine code released under both these licenses, you would violate section 6 of GPLv2. However, if code is released under GPL ‘version 2 or later’, that is compatible with GPLv3 because GPLv3 is one of the options it permits.“
Roles auf Mozilla.org “The ultimate decision-maker(s) are trusted members of the community who have the final say in the case of disputes. This is a model followed by many successful open source projects, although most of those communities only have one person in this role, and they are sometimes called the ‘benevolent dictator’. Mozilla has evolved to have two people in this role – Brendan Eich has the final say in any technical dispute and Mitchell Baker has the final say in any non-technical dispute.” (englisch).
Marcus D. Hanwell:Should I use a permissive license? Copyleft? Or something in the middle?In:opensource.com.28.Januar 2014,abgerufen am 20.Juli 2025(englisch):„Permissive licensing simplifies things One reason the business world, and more and more developers […], favor permissive licenses is in the simplicity of reuse. The license usually only pertains to the source code that is licensed and makes no attempt to infer any conditions upon any other component, and because of this there is no need to define what constitutes a derived work. I have also never seen a license compatibility chart for permissive licenses; it seems that they are all compatible.“
History of OSI.In:opensource.org.Abgerufen am 20.Juli 2025(englisch):„conferees decided it was time to dump the moralizing and confrontational attitude that had been associated with ‘free software’ in the past and sell the idea strictly on the same pragmatic, business-case grounds[…]“
Mission of the Open Source Initiative – “The promise of open source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility, lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in.” auf opensource.org (englisch).
Open Source Studie Schweiz 2015.(PDF)In:oss-studie.ch.swissICT und Swiss Open Systems User Group /ch/open,3.Juni 2015,abgerufen am 6.März 2020(Schweizer Hochdeutsch).
Richard Morris:Niklaus Wirth: Geek of the Week.In:simple-talk.com.2.Juli 2009,abgerufen am 20.Juli 2025(englisch):„Besides all the good things, the open source movement ignores and actually hinders the perception of one of the most important ideas in designing complex systems, namely their partitioning in modules, and their formation as an orderly hierarchy of modules.“
Netscape Communications:Netscape celebrates first anniversary of open source software release to mozilla.org.31.März 1999,archiviertvomOriginal(nicht mehr online verfügbar)am6.Juni 2013;abgerufen am 6.März 2020(englisch):„[…]The organization that manages open source developers working on the next generation of Netscape’s browser and communication software. This event marked a historical milestone for the Internet as Netscape became the first major commercial software company to open its source code, a trend that has since been followed by several other corporations. Since the code was first published on the Internet, thousands of individuals and organizations have downloaded it and made hundreds of contributions to the software. Mozilla.org is now celebrating this one year anniversary with a party Thursday night in San Francisco.“
Evgeny Morozov:The Meme Hustler – Tim O’Reilly’s crazy talk.In:thebaffler.com.4.April 2013,archiviertvomOriginal(nicht mehr online verfügbar)am25.März 2014;abgerufen am 20.Juli 2025(englisch):„In those early days, the messaging around open source occasionally bordered on propaganda. As Raymond himself put it in 1999, ‘what we needed to mount was in effect a marketing campaign’, one that ‘would require marketing techniques (spin, image-building, and re-branding) to make it work’.“
J Mark Lytle:Microsoft denies NSA backdoor in Windows 7.In:techradar.com.22.November 2009,archiviertvomOriginal(nicht mehr online verfügbar)am14.September 2012;abgerufen am 20.Juli 2025(englisch):„US National Security Agency did, however, work on the new OS“
Greg Stein:Standing Against License Proliferation.In:google-opensource.blogspot.com.28.Mai 2009,archiviertvomOriginal(nicht mehr online verfügbar)am1.Juni 2008;abgerufen am 11.September 2010(englisch).
Philippe Laurent:The GPLv3 and compatibility issues.(PDF)European Open source Lawyers Event 2008.In:eolevent.eu.University of Namur – Belgium,24.September 2008,S.7,archiviertvomOriginal(nicht mehr online verfügbar)am4.März 2016;abgerufen am 6.März 2020(englisch):„Copyleft is the main source of compatibility problems“
Licence Compatibility and Interoperability.Open-Source Software – Develop, share, and reuse open source software for public administrations.In:joinup.ec.europa.eu.ArchiviertvomOriginal(nicht mehr online verfügbar)am17.Juni 2015;abgerufen am 6.März 2020(englisch):„The licences for distributing free or open source software (FOSS) are divided in two families: permissive and copyleft. Permissive licences (BSD, MIT, X11, Apache, Zope) are generally compatible and interoperable with most other licences, tolerating to merge, combine or improve the covered code and to re-distribute it under many licences (including non-free or ‘proprietary’).“
Marco Fioretti: Is it legal to sell GPL software? “Please note that ‘as much as you wish’ only applies to the executable form of the software, not its source code.” Techrepublic.com, 19. November 2013 (englisch).
Netscape Communications:Netscape celebrates first anniversary of open source software release to mozilla.org.31.März 1999,archiviertvomOriginal(nicht mehr online verfügbar)am6.Juni 2013;abgerufen am 6.März 2020(englisch):„[…]The organization that manages open source developers working on the next generation of Netscape’s browser and communication software. This event marked a historical milestone for the Internet as Netscape became the first major commercial software company to open its source code, a trend that has since been followed by several other corporations. Since the code was first published on the Internet, thousands of individuals and organizations have downloaded it and made hundreds of contributions to the software. Mozilla.org is now celebrating this one year anniversary with a party Thursday night in San Francisco.“
Evgeny Morozov:The Meme Hustler – Tim O’Reilly’s crazy talk.In:thebaffler.com.4.April 2013,archiviertvomOriginal(nicht mehr online verfügbar)am25.März 2014;abgerufen am 20.Juli 2025(englisch):„In those early days, the messaging around open source occasionally bordered on propaganda. As Raymond himself put it in 1999, ‘what we needed to mount was in effect a marketing campaign’, one that ‘would require marketing techniques (spin, image-building, and re-branding) to make it work’.“
Greg Stein:Standing Against License Proliferation.In:google-opensource.blogspot.com.28.Mai 2009,archiviertvomOriginal(nicht mehr online verfügbar)am1.Juni 2008;abgerufen am 11.September 2010(englisch).
Philippe Laurent:The GPLv3 and compatibility issues.(PDF)European Open source Lawyers Event 2008.In:eolevent.eu.University of Namur – Belgium,24.September 2008,S.7,archiviertvomOriginal(nicht mehr online verfügbar)am4.März 2016;abgerufen am 6.März 2020(englisch):„Copyleft is the main source of compatibility problems“
Licence Compatibility and Interoperability.Open-Source Software – Develop, share, and reuse open source software for public administrations.In:joinup.ec.europa.eu.ArchiviertvomOriginal(nicht mehr online verfügbar)am17.Juni 2015;abgerufen am 6.März 2020(englisch):„The licences for distributing free or open source software (FOSS) are divided in two families: permissive and copyleft. Permissive licences (BSD, MIT, X11, Apache, Zope) are generally compatible and interoperable with most other licences, tolerating to merge, combine or improve the covered code and to re-distribute it under many licences (including non-free or ‘proprietary’).“
Kevin Crowston, Kangning Wei, James Howison, Andrea Wiggins:Free/Libre open-source software development: What we know and what we do not know. Hrsg.: ACM. Band44, Nr.2. ACM Computing Surveys, ISSN0360-0300, S.7:13, doi:10.1145/2089125.2089127 (englisch): “For example, Bonaccorsi and Rossi [2006] found that firms are motivated to be involved with FLOSS because it allows smaller firms to innovate, because “many eyes” assist them in software development, and because of the quality and reliability of FLOSS, with the ideological fight for free software at the bottom of the list.”
Kevin Crowston, Kangning Wei, James Howison, Andrea Wiggins:Free/Libre open-source software development: What we know and what we do not know. Hrsg.: ACM. Band44, Nr.2. ACM Computing Surveys, ISSN0360-0300, S.7:23, doi:10.1145/2089125.2089127 (englisch): “For example, based on 75 FLOSS projects, Capra et al. [2008] reported a high degree of openness in governance practices leads to higher software quality.”
