Wikidata:Property proposal/Software development model

Software development model

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

   Not done

Description	Software development model
Represents	software (Q7397)
Data type	Item
Template parameter	|modelo_desarrollo= in Ficha de software and Ficha de sistema operativo infoboxes.
Domain	software development (Q638608)
Example 1	Windows 10 (Q18168774)→closed source (Q1102474)
Example 2	GIMP (Q8038)→open source (Q39162)
Example 3	Solaris (Q14646) → open source (Q39162) → closed source (Q1102474)
Planned use	Inmediately, for the given infobox

Motivación

Part of my infobox improvements. Development model as Open source, Closed source or both (for some multilicensed packages). --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Question Why not just use copyright license (P275)? --GPSLeo (talk) 07:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Use copyright license (P275) David (talk) 08:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

•  No, because License (ie Windows 10 (Q18168774)→Microsoft end-user license agreement (Q28914702) ) is not the same as development model GIMP (Q8038)→open source (Q39162). Qualifies inside copyright license (P275) is the right alternative, and I'm finding ways to add them to Lua-based infoboxes at the Spanish Wikipedia. --Amitie 10g (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Informatics has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment But this can be inferred from licence? John Samuel (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment @Amitie 10g: I don't think only using open source (Q39162) and closed source (Q1102474) would be completely appropriate. Different distinctions can be made; e.g. Darwin (Q14581) is open-source but is only contributed to by Apple employees, whereas in some smaller open-source projects only one person might have the authority to accept changes / pull requests. I don't know if developer (P178) could be used to describe these relationships. Jc86035 (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for mentioning Darwin.

The "development model" is based in the licensing rather than how the developers contribute and how the code is actually available to the public at the moment of early development.

A license is is defined just as Open and Closed source. Darwin and XNU are licensed under the Apple Public Source License, an open source license, and the XNU source code is available at GitHub.

While is easy to define the development model for a specific software, a software package like an operating system is harder to do. For example, "Linux" (the kernel) is Open source, as last censed under the GPL; XNU is licensed under the APSL, an open source license. macOS; the Windows NT kernel is licensed under the Microsoft EULA, which is closed source. In the first two cases, source code is available to the public, while in the case of Windows NT kernel not.

The Windows Embedded Compact source code is available to the costumers under the terms of the Shared Source Initiative, a closed source licensing scheme.

This is why my sense of "development model" may be "Open source", "Closed source", and maybe "Partially open source". --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

•  Weak oppose I think this data could be obtained from the software license. --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 22:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

•  Weak support. I think the people confusing this with licensing are muddying the waters. The given values, such as "open source" demonstrate how there is a difference, since one concept is about access and one is about rights (similarly, not all open access publications are open content). So I support a property to be able to describe this concept in items. However, the scope is a bit unclear. For a given value, are we talking about "open-source development" (as the property is named) or "open-source code" (as the proposal implies). Because it's slightly narrower to say a software has an open-source development model (like MediaWiki, or Firefox), than simply to say it is an open-source software—which simply means that the code has been made public, however it was developed. Dominic (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose "software development model" can have a meaning broader than just open source license vs not. For example, within open source, the "Cathedral" vs "Bazaar" models. And also, different software engineering methodologies such as waterfall vs. agile. And, in-house development vs outsourcing can also be described by this term. Something like "software licensing model" would be more accurate (if that doesn't duplicate copyright license (P275)). It is also a mistake to think "open source" implies "open development" – some projects have a very closed development model, totally indistinguishable from closed source or non-released inhouse software development, yet are open sourced in a "throw it over the fence" fashion. Sometimes, dying or dead closed source software gets open sourced years later, in which case the future open source license had zero impact on the actual process of development (the original developers may never have foreseen it would one day be open-sourced.) A good example is MS-DOS 1.25 and 2.0 – they were originally developed as closed source, and then open sourced decades later, at a time when they were now of purely historical interest. It is true that MS-DOS 1.25 and 2.0 are now open source (MIT license), but this has nothing to do with their "software development model". SJK (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment This proposal has been rejected, but nobody answered which property should be used for classifying software as open or closed source. Amitie 10g (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)