1 Feedback

1.1 Open Source

Alternative implementation strategies include open source software development, closed source software development, and potentially both.

I never really liked the term "closed source" because it doesn't have a movement behind it. OSI backs "open source" and the FSF backs "free software". So-called "closed source" is just another name for proprietary. English speakers seem to fuss about the definition between open and free in terms of software, but to give "free license" has only one meaning. Contrast with proprietary and we can just talk about licenses and ignore software entirely. At this point they aren't "alternative" strategies, but rather just the only two options, with a third being both.

1.1.1 Regarding concerns between either

We have run out of reference counts, so I think we have to just arm chair it. But I think some folks might have different perspectives on why something proprietary vs something with free license might seem better than the other. In terms of operating systems, many folks like MacOS and Windows over Debian. But in terms of web browsers, the lines blur with almost all modern browser being completely or mostly under a free license. (In this case doesn't it feel natural to say a free softare license?) IBM, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft, Intel, and AMD all have large open source footprints. Linux the kernel (not what I call lowercase linux the distros) has been in most web servers for the last 20 years and in most mobile devices for the last 10 years. All or most of the these companies have contributed to it for their own benefit.

But the point: formal software engineering methods can apply regardless. The license and the formal methods are independent. We can truth-table it. We've all seen this one before and forever, just with different column names: