text:
Free software movement

The free software movement is a social movement with the goal of obtaining and guaranteeing certain freedoms for software users, namely the freedoms to run, study, modify, and share copies of software. Software which meets these requirements, The Four Essential Freedoms of Free Software, is termed free software.

Although drawing on traditions and philosophies among members of the 1970s hacker culture and academia, Richard Stallman formally founded the movement in 1983 by launching the GNU Project. Stallman later established the Free Software Foundation in 1985 to support the movement.

Philosophy
The philosophy of the Free Software Movement is based on promoting collaboration between programmers and computer users. This process necessitates the rejection of proprietary software and the promotion of free software. Stallman notes that this action would not hinder the progression of technology, as he states, "Wasteful duplication of system programming effort will be avoided. This effort can go instead into advancing the state of the art."

Members of the Free Software Movement believe that all software users should have the freedoms listed in The Free Software Definition. Members hold the belief that it is immoral to prohibit or prevent people from exercising these freedoms, and that they are required in creating a community where software users can help each other and have control over their technology. Regarding proprietary software, some believe that it is not strictly immoral, citing increased profitability in the business models available for proprietary software, along with technical features and convenience.

The Free Software Foundation espouses the principle that all software needs free documentation, as programmers should have the ability to update manuals to reflect modifications made to the software. Within the movement, the FLOSS Manuals foundation specializes in providing such documentation.

Writing and spreading free software
The core work of the free software movement is focused on software development. The free software movement also rejects proprietary software, refusing to install software that does not give them the freedoms of free software. According to Stallman, "The only thing in the software field that is worse than an unauthorised copy of a proprietary program, is an authorised copy of the proprietary program because this does the same harm to its whole community of users, and in addition, usually the developer, the perpetrator of this evil, profits from it."

Building awareness
Some supporters of the free software movement take up public speaking, or host a stall at software-related conferences to raise awareness of software freedom. This is seen as important since people who receive free software, but who are not aware that it is free software, will later accept a non-free replacement or will add software that is not free software.

Asia

 * Free Software Movement
 * International Centre for Free and Open Source Software (ICFOSS)

Africa

 * Free Software and Open Source Foundation for Africa

North America

 * Free Software Foundation
 * Software Freedom Law Center

South America

 * Free Software Foundation Latin America
 * Software Livre Brasil

Europe

 * Free Software Foundation Europe
 * Framasoft
 * Irish Free Software Organisation

Australia

 * Free Software Australia

Legislation and government
A lot of lobbying work has been done against software patents and expansions of copyright law. Other lobbying focuses directly on the use of free software by government agencies and government-funded projects.

China
In June 1997, the Society for Study, Application, and Development of Free Software was established under the China Software Industry Association in Beijing. Through this organization, the website freesoft.cei.gov.cn was developed, though the website is currently inaccessible on IP addresses located in the United States. The use of open-source software Linux in China has moved beyond government and educational institutions and has extended to other organizations such as financial institutions, telecommunications, and public security. Several Chinese researchers and scholars have claimed that the existence of FOSS in China has been important in challenging the presence of Microsoft, which Guangnan Ni, a member of the Chinese Academy of Engineering stated, "The monopoly of (Microsoft Windows) is even more powerful in China than other places in the world". Yi Zhou, a professor of mathematics at Fudan University, has also alleged that, "Government procurement of FLOSS for a number of years in China has compelled Microsoft to cut its prices of Office software substantially"

India
Government of India had issued Policy on Adoption of Open Source Software for Government of India in 2015 to drive uptake within the government. With the vision to transform India as a Software Product Nation, National Policy on Software Products-2019 was approved by the Government.

Pakistan
Free and Open Source Software (Foss) is crucial for countries such as Pakistan which is set up by Union of Information Technology. For the case of Pakistan, Pakistan Software Export Board (PSEB) aids in the creation and advocate of FOSS usage in various government departments in addition to curbing illegality of copying that is software piracy.Promotion of adoption of FOSS is essential however it comes with problems of proprietary anti competition software practices including indulging in bribing and corruption by government departments.Pakistan works on the introduction  of usage of open type  basis of source Solutions in the curricula  in schools and colleges. This is because of FOSS uniqueness in terms of political, democratic and social varieties of aspect regarding  information communication and technology.

United States
In the United States, there have been efforts to pass legislation at the state level encouraging the use of free software by state government agencies.

On January 11, 2022, two bills were shown on the New Hampshire legislating floor. The first bill called "HB 1273" was introduced by Democratic New Hampshire representative Eric Gallager, the bill prioritized "replacing proprietary software used by state agencies with free software." Gallager stated that to an extent, the proposed legislation will help distinguish "free software" and "open-source software", this will also put these two into state regulation. The second bill called "HB 1581" was proposed by Grafton Republican representative Lex Berezhny. The bill would've restored a requisite forcing "state agencies to use proprietary software" and as Lex put it, "when it is the most effective solution." He also said that requisite was happening between 2012 and 2018. According to the Concord Monitor, the state of New Hampshire had an already "thriving open source software community" with a view of "live free or die" but they had difficulty getting that notion with the state.

Peru
Congressmen Edgar David Villanueva and Jacques Rodrich Ackerman have been instrumental in introducing free software in Peru, with bill 1609 on "Free Software in Public Administration". The incident invited the attention of Microsoft, Peru, whose general manager wrote a letter to Villanueva. His response received worldwide attention and is seen as a classic piece of argumentation favouring use of free software in governments.

Uruguay
Uruguay has a sanctioned law requiring that the state give priority to free software. It also requires that information be exchanged in open formats.

Venezuela
The Government of Venezuela implemented a free software law in January 2006. Decree No. 3,390 mandated all government agencies to migrate to free software over a two-year period.

Europe
Publiccode.eu is a campaign launched demanding a legislation requiring that publicly financed software developed for the public sector be made publicly available under a Free and Open Source Software licence. If it is public money, it should be public code as well.

France
The French Gendarmerie and the French National Assembly utilize the open source operating system Linux.

United Kingdom
Gov.uk keeps a list of "key components, tools and services that have gone into the construction of GOV.UK". $[title needed]$

Events
Free Software events happening all around the world connects people to increase visibility for Free software projects and foster collaborations.

Economics
The free software movement has been extensively analyzed using economic methodologies, including perspectives from heterodox economics. Of particular interest to economists is the willingness of programmers in the free software movement to work,.

In his 1998 article "The High-Tech Gift Economy", Richard Barbrook suggested that the then-nascent free software movement represented a return to the gift economy building on hobbyism and the absence of economic scarcity on the Internet.

Gabriella Coleman has emphasized the importance of accreditation, respect, and honour within the free software community as a form of compensation for contributions to projects, over and against financial motivations.

The Swedish Marxian economist Johan Söderberg has argued that the free software movement represents a complete alternative to capitalism that may be expanded to create a post-work society. He argues that the combination of a manipulation of intellectual property law and private property to make goods available to the public and a thorough blend between labor and fun make the free software movement a communist economy.

Subgroups and schisms
Since its inception, there is an ongoing contention between the many FLOSS organizations (FSF, OSI, Debian, Mozilla Foundation, Apache Foundation, etc.) within the free software movement, with the main conflicts centered around the organization's needs for compromise and pragmatism rather than adhering to founding values and philosophies.

Open source
The Open Source Initiative (OSI) was founded in February 1998 by Eric Raymond and Bruce Perens to promote the term "open-source software" as an alternative term for free software. The OSI aimed to address the perceived shortcomings and ambiguity of the term "free software", as well as shifting the focus of free software from a social and ethical issue to instead emphasize open source as a superior model for software development. The latter became the view of Eric Raymond and Linus Torvalds, while Bruce Perens argued that open source was meant to popularize free software under a new brand and called for a return to basic ethical principles.

Some free software advocates use the terms "Free and Open-Source Software" (FOSS) or "Free/Libre and Open-Source Software" (FLOSS) as a form of inclusive compromise, which brings free and open-source software advocates together to work on projects cohesively. Some users believe this is an ideal solution in order to promote both the user's freedom with the software and the pragmatic efficiency of an open-source development model. This view is reinforced by fact that majority of OSI-approved licenses and self-avowed open-source programs are also compatible with the free software formalisms and vice versa.

While free and open source software are often linked together, they offer two separate ideas and values. Richard Stallman has referred to open source as "a non-movement", as it "does not campaign for anything".

"Open source" addresses software being open as a practical question rather than an ethical dilemma – non-free software is not the best solution but nonetheless a solution. The free software movement views free software as a moral imperative: that proprietary software should be rejected, and that only free software should be developed and taught in order to make computing technology beneficial to the general public.

Although the movements have differing values and goals, collaborations between the Free Software Movement and Open Source Initiative have taken place when it comes to practical projects. By 2005, Richard Glass considered the differences to be a "serious fracture" but "vitally important to those on both sides of the fracture" and "of little importance to anyone else studying the movement from a software engineering perspective" since they have had "little effect on the field".

Principle compromises
Eric Raymond criticises the speed at which the free software movement is progressing, suggesting that temporary compromises should be made for long-term gains. Raymond argues that this could raise awareness of the software and thus increase the free software movement's influence on relevant standards and legislation.

Richard Stallman, on the other hand, sees the current level of compromise as a greater cause for worry.

Programmer income
Stallman said that this is where people get the misconception of "free": there is no wrong in programmers' requesting payment for a proposed project, or charging for copies of free software. Restricting and controlling the user's decisions on use is the actual violation of freedom. Stallman defends that in some cases, monetary incentive is not necessary for motivation since the pleasure in expressing creativity is a reward in itself. Conversely, Stallman admits that it is not easy to raise money for free software projects.

"Viral" copyleft licensing
The free software movement champions copyleft licensing schema (often pejoratively called "viral licenses"). In its strongest form, copyleft mandates that any works derived from copyleft-licensed software must also carry a copyleft license, so the license spreads from work to work like a computer virus might spread from machine to machine. Stallman has previously stated his opposition to describing the GNU GPL as "viral". These licensing terms can only be enforced through asserting copyrights.

Critics of copyleft licensing challenge the idea that restricting modifications is in line with the free software movement's emphasis on various "freedoms", especially when alternatives like MIT, BSD, and Apache licenses are more permissive. Proponents enjoy the assurance that copylefted work cannot usually be incorporated into non-free software projects. They emphasize that copyleft licenses may not attach for all uses and that in any case, developers can simply choose not to use copyleft-licensed software.

License proliferation and compatibility
FLOSS license proliferation is a serious concern in the FLOSS domain due to increased complexity of license compatibility considerations which limits and complicates source code reuse between FLOSS projects. The OSI and the FSF maintain their own lists of dozens of existing and acceptable FLOSS licenses. There is an agreement among most that the creation of new licenses should be minimized and those created should be made compatible with the major existing FLOSS licenses. Therefore, there was a strong controversy around the update of the GNU GPLv2 to the GNU GPLv3 in 2007, as the updated license is not compatible with the previous version. Several projects (mostly of the open source faction like the Linux kernel ) decided to not adopt the GPLv3 while almost all of the GNU project's packages adopted it.

title: Free software movement


text:
Talk:Free software movement

The open source community
The lead should have a small paragraph about the relation between the Free Software community and the Open Source community. This would be supported by the now named Subgroups and schisms section. Belorn (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I fixed your proposal.93.129.248.127 (talk) 10:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Style
Specifically regarding where quotations are more prolific, there seems to be some mixing of 'free software movement' and 'free-software movement' used. Which is proper? Raider480 (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Free Software Movement" is correct.Paradox (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It should be "free-software movement" as "free software" is a compound modifier to "movement"; this is just the proper usage of punctuation in the English language. LordOfPens (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The policy you should read is WP:COMMONNAME. Appealing to your grammar preferences does not override the rest of the world calling it "free software" without a hyphen. lethargilistic (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not a grammar preference; this is a fundamental part of English grammar. When referring to the software, it is "free software"; when referring to the movement, it is "free-software movement". LordOfPens (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's the name of a movement and they self-identify this way, not hyphenated. lethargilistic (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not all of us identify as such, and the movement is not unified enough to have a collective preference one way or the other. In such a circumstance, I believe the spelling should default to proper English. LordOfPens (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This last reply came after I opened the WP:DRN discussion due to the breadth of this editing pattern. All further discussion should take place there. (It is listed under "User talk:LordOfPens") lethargilistic (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Free software movement
I've created this category, please help to populate. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Free and open-source software movement
I have added alt name free and open-source software movement' to the lead, but I am having second thoughts. I wonder if free and open-source software movement is a distinct topic in need of stubbing or should it be discussed here. I am familiar with the free software vs open software debate, but I think related literature on the movement often talks about one free and open-source software movement, of which both the free software movement and open-source software movement are parts. GBooks for "Free software movement" gives about 5k hits, "open-source software" just a little less, about 4k ("https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22Free+software+movement%22#tbm=bks&q=%22open-source+software+movement%22"), and "free and open-source software movement", about 1k. Open-source software movement redirected to Open-source software, but movement =/= software, just like free software =/= free software movement, through that article does discuss open software movement a bit in its history (Open-source_software). So I have the following questions to the community: I wonder how much content of the current free software movement and open-source software needs splitting/rewriting because of this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * where should Open-source software movement redirect to? Here? Open-source movement? Or should it have its own, new article?
 * where should free and open-source software movement redirect to? Should it have its own, new article?

 * You can educate yourself on the matter via the FSF's website. As to your question, "free and open source software movement" should not be its own page because such a movement does not exist, nor does at least one of the two relevant movements wish to be lumped together. However, regarding software itself (not movements), there is the concept FLOSS, which is meant to be a neutral term to refer to both types of software. Paradox (talk) 03:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

 * I take the point made in the reply by but I think it's fair to say there *is* a larger movement that includes some partisans from both the free software and open source movements, as well as many who see themselves as non-partisan. One that champions the deeper software freedom principles underlying both the Free Software Definition and the Open Source Definition. I refer to that as the "software freedom movement" and this phrase is widely used by movement elders and organisations, eg:

 * https://sfconservancy.org/about/board/
 * https://fsfe.org/news/2020/news-20201110-01.html
 * https://archive.org/details/EbenMoglen-TheFreeSoftwareMovementAndTheStruggleForFreedomOfThought
 * It has been used in the wild for at least a decade, eg:
 * https://www.greanvillepost.com/2013/10/12/the-software-freedom-movement/
 * It can also be found in academic papers on the subject, eg:
 * https://doi.org/10.1080/07317131.2018.1456849
 * --Danylstrype (talk) 03:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Danylstrype Clearly, there is much confusion, including the problematic situation right now, with Free and open-source software movement redirecting here but the concept not being mentioned in the text, outside List of free and open-source software organizations. This should either be mentioned here, or turned into a disambig. And it is a thing, with several hundred academic works mentioning this term: Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here  04:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, "free and open-source software movement" is a phrase in wide use. I'm agreeing with you that this concept needs its own page, and that both that phrase and "software freedom movement", need to direct readers to said page. The latter seems like a clearer description of what both Free Software and Open Source partisans agree on, so I'd suggest it's the more appropriate title for the article. But it's not a hill I care to die on. Danylstrype (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Dead Link Free Software in Public Agencies
I think I found the rename, but don't know enough about Peru to know for sure: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Use_of_free_software_in_public_agencies

2601:647:201:3200:848C:7682:5E31:EA30 (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Free software movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101204201527/http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Free_Software_in_Public_Agencies to http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Free_Software_in_Public_Agencies

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Free software movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161109200145/https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTI4Mjc to https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTI4Mjc
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091223085507/http://www.zmag.org:80/znet/viewArticle/4795 to http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/4795

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposals: the issue of the separate Open-source software movement article
The issue

So as of right now there are two separate pages for "Free software movement" and "Open-source software movement". However, in reality it's just one movement with various subfactions, subphilosophies, subpriorities and/or subaspects and an internal disagreement about where the exclusion-line of the movement lies. Having two pages ending with "movement" is misleading and is confusing to readers.

A short history:
 * In 1983 Richard Stallman and the GNU Project organized, articulated and declared a movement incorporating, standardizing and unifying philosophies, practices and ideas of hacker communities calling it the "free software movement" that is about the freedom of users to use, investigate, change and redistribute software − called "free software" − that this movement produces and otherwise supports
 * Later (mainly) businesses picked up some ideas, practices and tools of the movement by developing/implementing open source development practices which for them is less an ethical one than a practical one
 * Present day the movement is somewhat splintered; companies try to boost their reputation as well as software-quality and -security (and thereby also the adoption of their software) by publicizing the source code under non-"free" licenses and try to make it appear as if they were leaders of this movement (and thereby also attract and motivate employees). Many free software movement people support companies doing this and thank them for at least making their source code public. Furthermore many free software movement people are employed by such companies and/or involved in some of their open-source projects.

Having two separate pages is in the interest of some companies due to the latter point (marketing etc) and those that seek to divide the movement and also make it less effective and popular due to confusion about what it is and the right terminology and association. Note that it's not my intention to factor out the participation of companies - their open/public source or even "free" software efforts are still relevant and related to the (one) movement. Nor am I trying to disassociate the movement from its philosophy, values, intentions or origins. Also take note that no individual or institution − no matter how influential to the movement, respectable and noble − decides over a true social movement. Egoism and some statements by popular figures within the movement might actually be detrimental to the movement and not reflect it properly. There might even be outside purposeful efforts to coopt and split the community/movement to make it less effective and disruptive involved. However I think the "split" was probably just an issue of failed collective -terminology-establishment, -decision-making and -organization. Please do have an open mind and don't comment immediately with whatever your current stance might be: instead please first read through the post and potentially rethink some things. I'm really only trying to have this important part of present-day reality described in the most accurate way here.

→ Basically it's like this: all free software also has its source-code publicly available, software that only has its source code made public but isn't using a FOSS license makes it more "free" but not as free as members of this movement would like to have. The movement is like a large stream with branches and flooded areas. The definition of "open" in this context is key but it's not really(/necessarily) what's being addressed here and now. Please also see the sources below.

My suggestion for resolution

I suggest to:
 * merge relevant parts of open-source software movement into here
 * merge relevant parts of open-source software movement into Open-source software development
 * redirecting open-source software movement to Open-source software development
 * potentially renaming this page to Free and open source software movement or Free, open source software movement, The free/open source software movement or Open-source movement (software)

There could also be new subsections. (e.g. "Aspects", "Extents of software freedom", "Philosophies", "Advantages", "Values", "Free software", "Licenses and terminology", "'Free' vs. 'open'" or alike)

For an ideal, long-term solution I'd like to note that "open" in and of itself does not have to include any non-free licenses. Instead people could start to distinguish between "open" source (free) and "public" source (non-free) code. Using the term "free software" is highly problematic as people will keep associating it with free as in free beer/free of charge while "open source" is a more popular term that is more widely understood and typically also refers to what is meant with "free software". However while the term "open" seems to be more accurate people have to use the term "free" to distinguish themselves from this "open source but not free"-model.

Sources

"Unfortunately, there is some confusion in terminology in the open-source community. First of all, there are two competing names for the movement (some would say two separate, but similar, movements). [...] the name "open-source" is less ambiguous than "free software" [...] [this] choice of name is not intended to imply endorsement of the open-source philosophy over the free software philosophy: It is only for easy of comprehension."

~

"The OSS movement arose in the 1990s (DiBona, Ockmann, & Stone, 1999) from the smaller, more fervent "free software" movement"

~

"And it is even less appropriate to try to define the movement(s) by adopting the current shifting projections of those who are obviously hostile to it. A discussion of open source that is pushed forward by a turgid analysis of rhetoric or a focus of assertive personalities, personal clashes and dissection of the community into factions sheds little light on the broader structures and connections at work that help define an open source and free software sensibility in relation to the rest of the world. A more focused and practical way of understanding the formation of this 'community' - its distinctions and the achievements of the 'movement' - (if indeed it is to live up to the political expectations inherent in that term) is needed."

~

"The mounting free software movement has always cared deeply about the freedom to innovate and to publish. After prudent re-branding in order not to frighten business-school-bred executives it is now called the open-source software movement"

~

"it was at just this moment that Free Software was becoming aware of itself as a coherent movement and not just a diverse amalgamation of projects, tools, or practices. ironically, this recognition also betokened a split: certain parties started to insist that the movement be called "Open Source" software instead, to highlight the practical over the ideological commitments of the movement. [...] This enigmatic event, in which a movement became aware of itself at the same time that it began to question its mission, is the subject of chapter 3. I use the term movement to designate one of the five core components of Free Software: the practices of argument and disagreement about the meaning of Free Software."

~

"Unlike Stallman's emphasis on sharing and morality, Raymond emphasizes the practical aspects of open source that leads to its technical superiority."

~

"Those who support the open source software position emphasise the technical, rather than moral and political, benefits of FOSS"

~

"e-mail response from Richard Stallman, founder of the GNU project, in which he argued that by using this title all relevant and important work of the Free Software community would be subsumed by the Open Source movement (which of course was never intended), and its very existence denied."

~

"it would be helpful to define what we mean by "free" and "open source". Remidez, Laffey and Musser (2001) explicitly state that the open-source model is not a set model or procedure for developing software. It is closer to a philosophy than a process" (p. 2). At the heart of open source software philosophy is the concept of "free" [...] on a practical level, the open source movement and the free software movement overlap one another considerably. And, for the purposes of this chapter the terms free, open source, and FOSS are used interchangably. [...] the majority agree that open source software can be defined as software whose source code is freely available to the user to examine, modify, and redistribute [...] FOSS contrasts sharply with proprietary or closed-source software [...] For O'Dell (2004), the major stepping off point for the open source movement began in 1989 with the release of the World Wide Web specification by Tim berners-Lee and the team at CERN."

~

"The Linux and open source movement has instigated "religious wars" between different camps [...] Debian is a community-developed, open source Linux distribution). Bruce and other leads of the open source movement agreed to adopt this social contract as the official Open Source Definition (OSD). Bruce is therefor credited as the primary author of the OSD. It should be noted that those who subscribe to the pure notion of free software, including Richard Stallman, do not agree with the change of name to "open source"."

~

"There is one serious fracture in the open source movement, between those who believe in "open source" software"

~

"The geekiest hangouts on the Net and Web-the open source and free software movement sites-are the vast, hivelike communities of worker geeks patching together cheap and efficient new software that they distribute freely and generously to one another. [...] and to the open source and free software movements. (this is a global geek political movement committed to building good software and distributing it for free, so that a handful of corporations won't dominate the Web the way they do the rest of the world.)"

~

"Bioinformatics is one of many fields benefiting from the open-source movement, an offshoot of the free software movement in the computer industry."

~

"According to (berdou, 2007) the term "open source" or "free software" can be interpreted from three different angles, individually or in combination: [...] 3. A movement based on the ideals of the hacker culture, which is premised upon the freedom to use, create and tinker with the software"

~

"The term "open source" emerged during a strategy session between several hackers of the early open software movement. [...] Although the basics of open source remain the same since the start of the movement, the current definition of open source has been expanded [...] The FOSS movement emerged as a fundamentally new, decentralized, participatory and transparent system to develop software in contrast to the closed box, top-down and secretive standard commercial approach."

~

"This open-source social movement has resulted in a variety of digital contents that are licensed for free and open-use by others. the freedoms spelled out in the open-source movement related to software related to software include four basic levels of freedom (to summarize): [...] The open source movement is a well established model of production which is influencing not only the computer industry but as an analogy, a number of other sectors such as geo-information sector."

~

"Under the shiny surface of commercialism, however, a new generation of hackers was forming a new movement. Linked together via the Internet and the World Wide Web, this was a global movement vastly bigger and more resourceful than prior hacker communities had ever been. [...] The last thing they wanted was to alienate potential partners in business and industry by what they saw as Stallman's "infamous" confrontational attitude. Stallman on his side did little to ease the tension. [...] As one person put it, "Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement." [...] it had for all practical purposes created two separate wings, a left and a right as it were, within the braoder movement. Many, even within the OSI, thought this schism was an unfortunate turn of events. Perens, for instance, had originally envisioned the OSI as a gentle introduction to the deeper philosophy of free software, rather than a separate movement [...] When we founded Open Source, my understanding was that Open Source would be a gentle introduction to Free Software and not a separate movement. I would never have participated in open Source for the purpose of creating a schism. especially now, it is important that we stand together."

~

"Open source is much a philosophy or a movement as a body of software made available under open licenses. [...] The Free and Open Source movement has had a phenomenal impact on the industry's evolution [...] The open source software movement is considered by many to be a key to moving education forward. open source involves licensing one's software in a way that others may use it and redistribute it and even modify it, often with no cost involved. This movement has also spawned a parallel open education movement [...] Software reuse opportunities open up on three axes: what to reuse, how to reuse it, and where to reuse it. Movement along these three axes increases the breadth of software reuse opportunities in any development effort."

~

Notified WikiProjects, communities, users

 * WikiProject Free Software | Date: 2017-07-11
 * WikiProject Open | Date: 2017-07-11
 * Merge templates on the Free software movement, Open-source software movement and Open-source software development articles | Date: 2017-07-11
 * Talk-page entries on Talk:Free software and Talk:Open-source software | Date: 2017-07-11

-

Let's please have this important discussion now: please do participate with arguments, relevant information, relevant suggestions and your opinions. Thank you.

--Fixuture (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

 * oppose merge - perhaps it could be confusing for readers if we merged the two articles into one. These movements are rather separate and use different strategies and governing entities. --Gryllida (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you produce some quotes and sources to back up your opposition? MartinPoulter (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

California Kidd -- I oppose the merger as well. These are two different issues Free Software vs. Open-source Software.

Free software implies that there will be no license or a very brief license which generally states there is no license. This license is offered without any requirements or future obligations. You may use the software to create a software empire, like Microsoft, incidentally, other tech companies did just that for Microsoft.
 * Absolutely each word of this paragraph is complete bollocks and the opposite of what is correct. --87.79.180.142 (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

However, an Open-source license implies that the purpose of the license is to perpetuate the open-source software movement.
 * Absolutely each word of this paragraph is complete bollocks and the opposite of what is correct. --87.79.180.142 (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

If you read the license you will see code requirements. Whether they stand in court or not is not the most important, but instead the continuation of the movement is the purpose of the license. This may be considered good or bad because of continued support for the product or feelings of continued interference.

19 July 2017: 1:14pm pst — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaliforniaKidd (talk • contribs) 20:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not the case. In fact, I think you'll find "open-source" advocates are less likely to use copyleft licenses. Eman  235 / talk  20:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I also wonder where User:CaliforniaKidd is getting this information, which is easily contradicted. Just look at the long list of free software licences. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

 * This proposal is based on false premises. Some of the literature cited includes the same misconceptions, which has indeed een part of the problem. However, one need look no further than the FSF's own site to refute the opening statement "So as of right now there are two separate pages for "Free software movement" and "Open-source software movement". However, in reality it's just one movement". --
 * "We are not against the Open Source movement, but we don't want to be lumped in with them. We acknowledge that they have contributed to our community, but we created this community, and we want people to know this. We want people to associate our achievements with our values and our philosophy, not with theirs. We want to be heard, not obscured behind a group with different views. To prevent people from thinking we are part of them, we take pains to avoid using the word “open” to describe free software, or its contrary, “closed”, in talking about non-free software."
 * In light of this, the proposal should probably be closed soon. Furthermore, the idea that "free software" is the more ambiguous term is not necessarily obvious. In fact, "open source" being too ambiguous is one of the listed reasons the Free Software movement avoids the term. Paradox (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

 * Of course NO merger here! The Free Software Movement is something different than the concept of Open Source, which, is no movement at all, but a technical term. --87.79.180.142 (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

 * I strongly oppose this proposal. Their philosophies are very different. The free software movement is concerned in giving freedom to the users of a software, because they believe it is the right way to do. They want to revive the hacker culture. The open source movement, on the other hand, uses the benefit of giving freedom to the user to further improve one's software. They aren't however obligated to give the freedoms, as can be seen in Google, who commonly uses the fruits of the FLOSS community to create nonfree/closed source software. Merging these two movements in one article is like merging the fork and the original in one article. im temtem • hOI!! • fsfdfg 11:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

 * Comment Open source software movement could redirect to OSI as well. I think the title of Free software movement should stay the same, we already have History of free and open-source software. Seraphim System ( talk ) 12:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

California proposal
The source for the proposed law is a news article from 2002 about an advocacy effort. I can't find any other coverage so I assume no bill was ever actually introduced in the legislature. Is this notable enough to remain in the article? I'm leaning towards no, but curious to hear other perspectives. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Couldn't find any information on, but I'm not sure if it's the right place to look. Internet is quiet, too. I'm going to remove the information. – K4rolB (talk) 11:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Richard Matthew Stallman2.jpeg

Removal of "Stallman and Torvalds" subsection
Regarding latest edit by @Lavendirt: while I generally welcome those changes, I would like to contest the removal of "Stallman and Torvalds" subsection. It described an element of the split between pragmatic and ethical proponents of FLOSS and two main characters on both sides. I think it is relevant to context. If it does not warrant the separate subsection, it could be a part of "Open source" subsection. – K4rolB (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

 * Hi,
 * Thanks so much for the feedback on my edit! While drafting the edit, I was unsure where to place the Stallman and Torvalds subsection so I removed it, but I agree that it could work well being part of the "open source" subsection. I mainly wanted to address the repetition in "Subgroups and Schisms" with my edit. Hope this helps! Lavendirt (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Free software movement


text:
Food

Food is any substance consumed by an organism for nutritional support. Food is usually of plant, animal, or fungal origin and contains essential nutrients such as carbohydrates, fats, proteins, vitamins, or minerals. The substance is ingested by an organism and assimilated by the organism's cells to provide energy, maintain life, or stimulate growth. Different species of animals have different feeding behaviours that satisfy the needs of their metabolisms and have evolved to fill a specific ecological niche within specific geographical contexts.

Omnivorous humans are highly adaptable and have adapted to obtain food in many different ecosystems. Humans generally use cooking to prepare food for consumption. The majority of the food energy required is supplied by the industrial food industry, which produces food through intensive agriculture and distributes it through complex food processing and food distribution systems. This system of conventional agriculture relies heavily on fossil fuels, which means that the food and agricultural systems are one of the major contributors to climate change, accounting for as much as 37% of total greenhouse gas emissions.

The food system has significant impacts on a wide range of other social and political issues, including sustainability, biological diversity, economics, population growth, water supply, and food security. Food safety and security are monitored by international agencies like the International Association for Food Protection, the World Resources Institute, the World Food Programme, the Food and Agriculture Organization, and the International Food Information Council.

Definition and classification
Food is any substance consumed to provide nutritional support and energy to an organism. It can be raw, processed, or formulated and is consumed orally by animals for growth, health, or pleasure. Food is mainly composed of water, lipids, proteins, and carbohydrates. Minerals (e.g., salts) and organic substances (e.g., vitamins) can also be found in food. Plants, algae, and some microorganisms use photosynthesis to make some of their own nutrients. Water is found in many foods and has been defined as a food by itself. Water and fiber have low energy densities, or calories, while fat is the most energy-dense component. Some inorganic (non-food) elements are also essential for plant and animal functioning.

Human food can be classified in various ways, either by related content or by how it is processed. The number and composition of food groups can vary. Most systems include four basic groups that describe their origin and relative nutritional function: Vegetables and Fruit, Cereals and Bread, Dairy, and Meat. Studies that look into diet quality group food into whole grains/cereals, refined grains/cereals, vegetables, fruits, nuts, legumes, eggs, dairy products, fish, red meat, processed meat, and sugar-sweetened beverages. The Food and Agriculture Organization and World Health Organization use a system with nineteen food classifications: cereals, roots, pulses and nuts, milk, eggs, fish and shellfish, meat, insects, vegetables, fruits, fats and oils, sweets and sugars, spices and condiments, beverages, foods for nutritional uses, food additives, composite dishes and savoury snacks.

Food sources
In a given ecosystem, food forms a web of interlocking chains with primary producers at the bottom and apex predators at the top. Other aspects of the web include detrovores (that eat detritis) and decomposers (that break down dead organisms). Primary producers include algae, plants, bacteria and protists that acquire their energy from sunlight. Primary consumers are the herbivores that consume the plants, and secondary consumers are the carnivores that consume those herbivores. Some organisms, including most mammals and birds, diet consists of both animals and plants, and they are considered omnivores. The chain ends with the apex predators, the animals that have no known predators in its ecosystem. Humans are considered apex predators.

Humans are omnivores, finding sustenance in vegetables, fruits, cooked meat, milk, eggs, mushrooms and seaweed. Cereal grain is a staple food that provides more food energy worldwide than any other type of crop. Corn (maize), wheat, and rice account for 87% of all grain production worldwide. Just over half of the world's crops are used to feed humans (55 percent), with 36 percent grown as animal feed and 9 percent for biofuels. Fungi and bacteria are also used in the preparation of fermented foods like bread, wine, cheese and yogurt.

Photosynthesis
During photosynthesis energy from the sun is absorbed and used to transform water and carbon dioxide in the air or soil into oxygen and glucose. The oxygen is then released, and the glucose stored as an energy reserve. Photosynthetic plants, algae and certain bacteria often represent the lowest point the food chains, making photosynthesis the primary source of energy and food for nearly all life on earth.

Plants also absorb important nutrients and minerals from the air, natural waters, and soil. Carbon, oxygen and hydrogen are absorbed from the air or water and are the basic nutrients needed for plant survival. The three main nutrients absorbed from the soil for plant growth are nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, with other important nutrients including calcium, sulfur, magnesium, iron boron, chlorine, manganese, zinc, copper molybdenum and nickel.

Microorganisms
Bacteria and other microorganisms also form the lower rugs of the food chain. They obtain their energy from photosynthesis or by breaking down dead organisms, waste or chemical compounds. Some form symbiotic relationships with other organisms to obtain their nutrients. Bacteria provide a source of food for protozoa, who in turn provide a source of food for other organisms such as small invertebrates. Other organisms that feed on bacteria include nematodes, fan worms, shellfish and a species of snail.

In the marine environment plankton (which includes bacteria, archaea, algae, protozoa and microscopic fungi) provide a crucial source of food to many small and large aquatic organisms.

Without bacteria, life would scarcely exist because bacteria convert atmospheric nitrogen into nutritious ammonia. Ammonia is the precursor to proteins, nucleic acids, and most vitamins. Since the advent of industrial process for nitrogen fixation, the Haber-Bosch Process, the majority of ammonia in the world is human-made.

Plants
Plants as a food source are divided into seeds, fruits, vegetables, legumes, grains and nuts. Where plants fall within these categories can vary, with botanically described fruits such as the tomato, squash, pepper and eggplant or seeds like peas commonly considered vegetables. Food is a fruit if the part eaten is derived from the reproductive tissue, so seeds, nuts and grains are technically fruit. From a culinary perspective, fruits are generally considered the remains of botanically described fruits after grains, nuts, seeds and fruits used as vegetables are removed. Grains can be defined as seeds that humans eat or harvest, with cereal grains (oats, wheat, rice, corn, barley, rye, sorghum and millet) belonging to the Poaceae (grass) family and pulses coming from the Fabaceae (legume) family. Whole grains are foods that contain all the elements of the original seed (bran, germ, and endosperm). Nuts are dry fruits, distinguishable by their woody shell.

Fleshy fruits (distinguishable from dry fruits like grain, seeds and nuts) can be further classified as stone fruits (cherries and peaches), pome fruits (apples, pears), berries (blackberry, strawberry), citrus (oranges, lemon), melons (watermelon, cantaloupe), Mediterranean fruits (grapes, fig), tropical fruits (banana, pineapple). Vegetables refer to any other part of the plant that can be eaten, including roots, stems, leaves, flowers, bark or the entire plant itself. These include root vegetables (potatoes and carrots), bulbs (onion family), flowers (cauliflower and broccoli), leaf vegetables (spinach and lettuce) and stem vegetables (celery and asparagus).

The carbohydrate, protein and lipid content of plants is highly variable. Carbohydrates are mainly in the form of starch, fructose, glucose and other sugars. Most vitamins are found from plant sources, with exceptions of vitamin D and vitamin B12. Minerals can also be plentiful or not. Fruit can consist of up to 90% water, contain high levels of simple sugars that contribute to their sweet taste, and have a high vitamin C content. Compared to fleshy fruit (excepting Bananas) vegetables are high in starch, potassium, dietary fiber, folate and vitamins and low in fat and calories. Grains are more starch based and nuts have a high protein, fibre, vitamin E and B content. Seeds are a good source of food for animals because they are abundant and contain fibre and healthful fats, such as omega-3 fats. Complicated chemical interactions can enhance or depress bioavailability of certain nutrients. Phytates can prevent the release of some sugars and vitamins.

Animals that only eat plants are called herbivores, with those that mostly just eat fruits known as frugivores, leaves, while shoot eaters are folivores (pandas) and wood eaters termed xylophages (termites). Frugivores include a diverse range of species from annelids to elephants, chimpanzees and many birds. About 182 fish consume seeds or fruit. Animals (domesticated and wild) use as many types of grasses that have adapted to different locations as their main source of nutrients.

Humans eat thousands of plant species; there may be as many as 75,000 edible species of angiosperms, of which perhaps 7,000 are often eaten. Plants can be processed into breads, pasta, cereals, juices and jams or raw ingredients such as sugar, herbs, spices and oils can be extracted. Oilseeds are pressed to produce rich oils – sunflower, flaxseed, rapeseed (including canola oil) and sesame.

Many plants and animals have coevolved in such a way that the fruit is a good source of nutrition to the animal who then excretes the seeds some distance away, allowing greater dispersal. Even seed predation can be mutually beneficial, as some seeds can survive the digestion process. Insects are major eaters of seeds, with ants being the only real seed dispersers. Birds, although being major dispersers, only rarely eat seeds as a source of food and can be identified by their thick beak that is used to crack open the seed coat. Mammals eat a more diverse range of seeds, as they are able to crush harder and larger seeds with their teeth.

Animals

Animals are used as food either directly or indirectly. This includes meat, eggs, shellfish and dairy products like milk and cheese. They are an important source of protein and are considered complete proteins for human consumption as they contain all the essential amino acids that the human body needs. One 4 oz steak, chicken breast or pork chop contains about 30 grams of protein. One large egg has 7 grams of protein. A 4 oz serving of cheese has about 15 grams of protein. And 1 cup of milk has about 8 grams of protein. Other nutrients found in animal products include calories, fat, essential vitamins (including B12) and minerals (including zinc, iron, calcium, magnesium).

Food products produced by animals include milk produced by mammary glands, which in many cultures is drunk or processed into dairy products (cheese, butter, etc.). Eggs laid by birds and other animals are eaten and bees produce honey, a reduced nectar from flowers that is used as a popular sweetener in many cultures. Some cultures consume blood, such as in blood sausage, as a thickener for sauces, or in a cured, salted form for times of food scarcity, and others use blood in stews such as jugged hare.

Taste
Animals, specifically humans, typically have five different types of tastes: sweet, sour, salty, bitter, and umami. The differing tastes are important for distinguishing between foods that are nutritionally beneficial and those which may contain harmful toxins. As animals have evolved, the tastes that provide the most energy are the most pleasant to eat while others are not enjoyable, although humans in particular can acquire a preference for some substances which are initially unenjoyable. Water, while important for survival, has no taste.

Sweetness is almost always caused by a type of simple sugar such as glucose or fructose, or disaccharides such as sucrose, a molecule combining glucose and fructose. Sourness is caused by acids, such as vinegar in alcoholic beverages. Sour foods include citrus, specifically lemons and limes. Sour is evolutionarily significant as it can signal a food that may have gone rancid due to bacteria. Saltiness is the taste of alkali metal ions such as sodium and potassium. It is found in almost every food in low to moderate proportions to enhance flavor. Bitter taste is a sensation considered unpleasant characterised by having a sharp, pungent taste. Unsweetened dark chocolate, caffeine, lemon rind, and some types of fruit are known to be bitter. Umami, commonly described as savory, is a marker of proteins and characteristic of broths and cooked meats. Foods that have a strong umami flavor include cheese, meat and mushrooms.

While most animals taste buds are located in their mouth, some insects taste receptors are located on their legs and some fish have taste buds along their entire body. Dogs, cats and birds have relatively few taste buds (chickens have about 30), adult humans have between 2000 and 4000, while catfish can have more than a million. Herbivores generally have more than carnivores as they need to tell which plants may be poisonous. Not all mammals share the same tastes: some rodents can taste starch, cats cannot taste sweetness, and several carnivores (including hyenas, dolphins, and sea lions) have lost the ability to sense up to four of the five taste modalities found in humans.

Digestion
Food is broken into nutrient components through digestive process. Proper digestion consists of mechanical processes (chewing, peristalsis) and chemical processes (digestive enzymes and microorganisms). The digestive systems of herbivores and carnivores are very different as plant matter is harder to digest. Carnivores mouths are designed for tearing and biting compared to the grinding action found in herbivores. Herbivores however have comparatively longer digestive tracts and larger stomachs to aid in digesting the cellulose in plants.

Food safety
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), about 600 million people worldwide get sick and 420,000 die each year from eating contaminated food. Diarrhea is the most common illness caused by consuming contaminated food, with about 550 million cases and 230,000 deaths from diarrhea each year. Children under five years of age account for 40% of the burden of foodborne illness, with 125,000 deaths each year.

A 2003 World Health Organization (WHO) report concluded that about 30% of reported food poisoning outbreaks in the WHO European Region occur in private homes. According to the WHO and CDC, in the USA alone, annually, there are 76 million cases of foodborne illness leading to 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths.

From 2011 to 2016, on average, there were 668,673 cases of foodborne illness and 21 deaths each year. In addition, during this period, 1,007 food poisoning outbreaks with 30,395 cases of food poisoning were reported.

title: Food


text:
Talk:Food

hunger and satience
We need a paragraph on this. There is a wikipedia article on hunger and the biochemical mechanism of hunger, but not about satience = the feeling of being full, not hungry anymore, satisfied food-wise. Thy, SvenAERTS (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

 * I very much agree on this matter. The paragraph authors of wikipedia should start making more articles about interesting subjects like satience. 88.167.168.2 (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Nitrogen fixation
Nitrogen fixation should be discussed. Plants can photosynthesize all the want, but they die without fixed nitrogen made by bacteria (or more commonly Haber-Bosch process). --Smokefoot (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Gender connotations in food
I would like to add a section about gender connotations in food:

Generally, each species of the animal kingdom eats what is necessary to stay alive, whether males, females or baby animals. Food has no classifications, conditions or gender, it is eaten solely for survival instinct. However, there are exceptions where there are sex differences in food preferences. For example, female White_stork have been shown to tend to choose different types of birds for food, unlike males, who tend to prefer mammals. These differences are mostly attributed to differences in parental duties, physiology and anatomy of this animal.

In the human world, in addition to the physiology, anatomy and parental duties of each individual, there is a species-specific phenomenon that greatly affects food choices, namely Gender_role stereotypes. A gender-based stereotype about food has been developing over the years, where certain types of food have gender connotations.

Based on gender stereotypes depicting men as agentic and women as communal, ingrained in our day to day, people have cultural expectations about what a masculine man or feminine woman should eat and in what quantity. Moreover, these ideas are so ingrained in our day to day that the food intake and people ́s food choices can be influenced by the physical appearance of someone or the mere presence of others.

Unlike animals, humans tend to regulate the type of food they eat and the amount they consume as a method of expressing their Gender_identity. This distinctly human phenomenon leads people to engage in behaviors and eating patterns that are influenced, often unconsciously, by these stereotypes of feminine or masculine food, for example, the classic thought that meat is for men and salads are for women.

For meat supply and processing, powerful actions are needed, such as hunting, which represents strength, aggressiveness and virility. Due to the Patriarchy, these characteristics have been associated with men, so meat is a product with a masculine connotation that serves as a symbolic marker. On the other hand, femininity is more associated to the quantity of food, that is, to what women do not eat. For this reason, dieting or eating light has a feminine connotation, and is often mocked in the world of men. Foods such as vegetables, fish and fruits carry a more feminine tradition, with softer characteristics, more delicate care and easier supply.

By living in a social environment, individuals acquire and learn a masculine or feminine eating style, congruent to their gender. This eating style has an impact on their food-related practices and preferences, and also has social consequences. For example, on a global scale, it has been confirmed that both men and women who eat feminine foods are classified as more feminine than people who choose food with a masculine connotation. The above demonstrates the power that food-related gender stereotypes have in affecting personal gender identity, which is why people tend to avoid food that is incongruent with their reference group, because this does not follow the supposedly appropriate behavioral patterns of their gender.

To understand the effect of gender on eating and drinking behaviours, it is very important to consider culture, since the same phenomena do not occur everywhere. For example, in countries like the USA, spicy food is gender-stereotyped, where it is associated with masculinity. However, in countries like Mexico, there is a spicy and chili culinary culture where everyone eats this type of food without being gender dependent. Space and time play an important role in classifying foods as masculine or feminine. Camcar27 (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

— Assignment last updated by Bflx 11 (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not helping you add it. Similar text has been reverted in other articles you've added it to. It's grossly generalised. Graham87 (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Community Economic and Social Development II
— Assignment last updated by Gurnaaz11 (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Food


text:
Floating Point

Floating Point is an album by John McLaughlin, released in 2008 through the record label Abstract Logix. The album reached number fourteen on Billboard's Top Jazz Albums chart.

Regarding the recording, McLaughlin commented: "while this CD features predominantly Indian musicians, we are in quite another form compared to the group Shakti... The music is for the most part 'Jazz-Fusion' if a label has to be put on it. But with the musicians involved in this project, it has also a 'world' kind of atmosphere." Concerning the album title, McLaughlin remarked: "Every now and then a group of musicians will gel together in such an incredible way, and at that point it's like you lose normal gravity... you've got your own gravity happening and you're kind of like floating with the other guys."

Reception
Michael G. Nastos of AllMusic called the album "a surprisingly fine effort, ebbing and flowing from track to track, with McLaughlin's high-level musicianship shining through, same as it ever was."

In a 5-star review for DownBeat, Ken Micallef commented: "this brilliant collective plays as a single unit, not a band of hired studio guns... This is a case of Indian musicians using their extraordinary skills to explore U.S. fusion, giving the now 70-year-old guitarist an amazing platform for compositional/improvisational development. This is a landmark recording, marked by detail, subtlety and extraordinarily moving performances."

John Kelman in All About Jazz wrote "One of the most fluent, evocative and powerful albums in a career filled with high points," and concluded: "McLaughlin's Indian friends may not have jazz in their blood the way it is in the guitarist's, but by approaching unmistakably western-informed music with an eastern mindset, they make Floating Point an album that, in McLaughlin's lengthy discography, is one of his most successful fusion records".

Writing for The Guardian, John Fordham awarded the album 5 stars, and stated: "this boiling new set sounds as if it's driven at least as much by cutting-edge Indian crossover musicians as by McLaughlin himself... this is 99% an absolute cracker, and not just for guitar nuts either."

Personnel

 * John McLaughlin – guitar synthesizer, guitar (2, 4, 6, 8)
 * Hadrien Feraud – bass guitar
 * Louis Banks – keyboards
 * Ranjit Barot – drums
 * Sivamani – percussion, konokol (6)
 * George Brooks – soprano saxophone (1)
 * Debashish Bhattacharya – Hindustani slide guitar (2)
 * Shashank Subramanyam – bamboo flute (4)
 * Shankar Mahadevan – voice (5)
 * U. Rajesh – electric mandolin (6)
 * Naveen Kumar – bamboo flute (7)
 * Niladri Kumar – sitar (8)

title: Floating Point


text:
Fantasy sport

A fantasy sport (also known less commonly as rotisserie or roto) is a game, often played using the Internet, where participants assemble imaginary or virtual teams composed of proxies of real players of a professional sport. These teams compete based on the statistical performance of those players in actual games. This performance is converted into points that are compiled and totaled according to a roster selected by each fantasy team's manager. These point systems can be simple enough to be manually calculated by a "league commissioner" who coordinates and manages the overall league, or points can be compiled and calculated using computers tracking actual results of the professional sport. In fantasy sports, as in real sports team owners draft, trade, and cut (drop) players.

Early simulations
The history of fantasy games can be traced to the 19th century. The tabletop game Sebring Parlor Base Ball, introduced in 1866, allowed participants to simulate games by propelling a coin into slots on a wooden board. Later games featured outcomes determined by dice rolls or spinners. In 1930, Clifford Van Beek designed the board game National Pastime, which contained customized baseball cards of Major League Baseball (MLB) players. After rolling a pair of dice, participants would consult the card of the MLB player "at bat" to determine an outcome, which could range from a single, double, triple, or home run to a strikeout, putout, walk, or error. Players with better statistics in the previous season were more likely to receive favorable outcomes; this allowed National Pastime to become one of the first games to try to simulate the performances of real-life MLB players.

An example of such games was APBA, which was first released in 1951 and also contained cards of MLB players with in-game outcomes correlated to their stats from past seasons. Participants could compose fantasy teams from the cards and play against each other or recreate previous seasons using the statistics on the cards. Individual player cards and dice roll simulations were also emulated in the Strat-O-Matic game, which was first released in 1961. Daniel Okrent, who would later be credited with developing modern fantasy baseball, was an avid Strat-O-Matic player, telling Sports Illustrated in 2011 that "if there hadn't been Strat-O-Matic, I still think I would have come up with rotisserie, but unquestionably it helped."

In 1961, another early form of fantasy baseball was coded for the IBM 1620 computer by John Burgeson, then working for IBM. A user would select a team from a limited roster of retired players to play against a team randomly chosen by the computer. The computer would then use random number generation and player statistics to simulate a game's outcome and print a play-by-play description of it.

While some of these fantasy games produced outcomes based on the performances of real athletes, they were not designed to be played out over the course of a season, nor did they take current statistics into account, relying instead on those from previous years.

The first leagues
In the 1950s, Oakland, California businessman and future limited partner in the Oakland Raiders Wilfred "Bill" Winkenbach developed a fantasy golf game in which participants would select a roster of professional golfers and compare their scores at the end of a given tournament, with the lowest combined total of strokes winning. He also created a baseball game in which players drafted hitters and pitchers, comparing their real-life statistics against each other. These early experiments, however, failed to spread to the general public.

In 1960, sociologist William A. Gamson developed the Baseball Seminar league, in which participants would draft rosters of active MLB players and compare results at the end of the season based on the players' final batting averages, earned run averages, runs batted in, and win totals. Gamson would go on to play the game as a professor at the University of Michigan, where another competitor was Bob Sklar. One of Sklar's students was Daniel Okrent. According to Alan Schwarz's The Numbers Game: Baseball’s Lifelong Fascination with Statistics, Sklar told Okrent about the Baseball Seminar league.

Two years later, in a New York City hotel room during a 1962 Raiders cross-country trip, Winkenbach, along with Raiders public relations employee Bill Tunnel and Oakland Tribune reporter Scotty Stirling, developed the rules that would eventually be the basis of modern fantasy football. The inaugural league was called the Greater Oakland Professional Pigskin Prognosticators League (GOPPPL), and the first draft took place at Winkenbach's home in Oakland in August 1963. One of the league's original members, Andy Mousalimas, owned a sports bar in Oakland called the King's X, where the first public fantasy football league was founded in 1969. The idea spread by word of mouth when the patrons of other Bay Area bars visited the King's X for trivia contests.

Rotisserie League Baseball
Modern fantasy baseball was developed and popularized in the 1980s by a group of journalists who created Rotisserie League Baseball in 1980. The league was named after the New York City restaurant La Rotisserie Française, where its founders met for lunch and first played the game. Magazine writer-editor Daniel Okrent is credited with introducing the rotisserie league concept to the group and inventing the scoring system. Players in the Rotisserie League drafted teams of active MLB players and tracked their statistics during the season to compile their scores. Like the Baseball Seminar league, rather than using statistics for seasons whose outcomes were already known to simulate in-game outcomes, team owners would have to make predictions about the statistics that MLB players would accumulate during the upcoming season.

Rotisserie baseball, nicknamed roto, proved to be popular despite the difficulties of compiling statistics by hand, which was an early drawback to participation. Okrent credits the idea's rapid spread to the fact that the initial league was created by sports journalists, telling Vanity Fair in 2008 that "most of us in the league were in the media, and we got a lot of press coverage that first season. The second season, there were rotisserie leagues in every Major League press box." According to Okrent, rotisserie baseball afforded sportswriters the opportunity to write about baseball-related material during the 1981 Major League Baseball strike, saying "the writers who were covering baseball had nothing to write about, so they began writing about the teams they had assembled in their own leagues. And that was what popularized it and spread it around very, very widely."

Growth and early participants
Before the advent of the Internet, fantasy sports grew through print publications, such as magazines and newspapers. In 1987, Fantasy Football Index, the first national magazine dedicated to fantasy football, was launched by Ian Allan and Bruce Taylor. Fantasy Sports Magazine debuted in 1989 as the first regular publication covering more than one fantasy sport.

In 1990, a pair of nationwide fantasy games, Dugout Derby and Pigskin Playoff, were launched in a variety of newspapers across the United States, including the Arizona Republic, the Hartford Courant, the Los Angeles Times, and the Miami Herald. Players chose their teams by calling a toll-free phone number and entering four-digit codes for each of their player selections. The games served as an early version of today's daily fantasy sports by rewarding each week's highest-scoring participants with prizes.

In 1993, the magazine Fantasy Football Weekly was launched. Also that year, USA Today added a weekly fantasy baseball columnist, John Hunt. Hunt started a league among sports personalities called the League of Alternate Baseball Reality, which first included Peter Gammons, Keith Olbermann and Bill James, among others.

Internet expansion
The growth of the Internet during the 1990s brought a "broad demographic shift in fantasy sports participation" because it enabled fantasy sports participants to instantaneously download tabulated statistics, rather than having to search for box scores of individual games in newspapers and keep track of cumulative statistics on paper.

In 1995, ESPN launched its first entirely Internet-based fantasy baseball game, with other major sports and entertainment companies following suit in the ensuing years. In October of that year, a fantasy hockey website was released by Molson Breweries as part of the company's "I am Online" marketing strategy centered around its I am Canadian advertising campaign. The site focused on music, entertainment and hockey in general in addition to fantasy competitions. It allowed users to register accounts and participate in fantasy leagues of nine teams. The site included updates of National Hockey League (NHL) statistics and provided content from the Hockey Hall of Fame.

CBS Sports began offering fantasy football leagues in 1997, the same year that the fantasy news website now known as RotoWire was launched. In July 1999, Yahoo began offering its fantasy football product for free, a decision that gave the site an advantage over its competitors. The creators of Fantasy Football Weekly launched Fanball.com later that year. While some sites abandoned a paid model in the wake of Yahoo's decision, some smaller sites, such as RotoWire, began offering paid products as they started losing business to larger competitors. CBS, which had transitioned to a free model for its league commissioner services, switched back to a paid model before the 2002 MLB season.

A trade group for the industry, the Fantasy Sports Trade Association, was formed in 1998. Now known as the Fantasy Sports & Gaming Association (FSGA), the organization estimates that in 2003, there were 15.2 million fantasy sports players in the United States and Canada.

During the first decade of the 2000s, fantasy sports started to become a mainstream hobby. In 2002, the National Football League (NFL) found that while the average male surveyed on its website spent 6.6 hours a week watching the league on television, fantasy players surveyed said they watched 8.4 hours of NFL football per week. "This is the first time we've been able to demonstrate specifically that fantasy play drives TV viewing," said Chris Russo, the NFL's senior vice president at the time. As a result of the survey's findings, the league made fantasy offerings more prominent on its website and produced television ads for fantasy football featuring  active players. Prior to these developments, fantasy sports were largely viewed negatively by major sports leagues, with Russo later recalling that "there were concerns about whether it would be right for the fans or could it be construed as gambling." However, leagues began to embrace fantasy sports as their value towards increasing fans' consumption of sports became more evident.

Daily fantasy sports
Daily fantasy sports are accelerated versions of the traditional fantasy format in which contests are conducted over shorter periods than a full season, often lasting one week or even a single day. Daily fantasy games are typically subject to an entry fee, a portion of which funds a prize pool that is distributed among the game's winner or winners.

In June 2007, Fantasy Sports Live, one of the first daily fantasy sites, was launched. In November 2008, NBC launched a daily fantasy site called SnapDraft, and FanDuel was founded in 2009 as a spin-off of a Scottish prediction market company. DraftKings was founded in 2012.

Following venture capital investments from various firms, including from professional sports leagues such as MLB and the National Basketball Association (NBA), DraftKings and FanDuel launched an aggressive marketing campaign prior to the 2015 NFL season. At its peak, the two companies collectively ran an ad on national television in the United States once every 90 seconds. In addition to receiving direct investments from sports leagues, the two companies have reached sponsorship deals with several leagues and teams. In November 2014, DraftKings entered into a multi-year sponsorship deal with the NHL. In April 2015, after the NFL began to allow daily fantasy providers to sign multi-year team sponsorship deals, FanDuel reached deals with sixteen teams for placements on team-oriented digital properties, radio broadcasts, and within their stadiums. DraftKings has also received investments from Jerry Jones and Robert Kraft, who own the Dallas Cowboys and New England Patriots, respectively.

The legality of daily fantasy sports has been questioned, with critics arguing that they more closely resemble proposition wagering on athlete performance than a traditional fantasy sports game. However, following the 2018 United States Supreme Court decision in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, which allowed states to legalize sports betting, questions surrounding the legality of daily fantasy sports, as well as fantasy sports in general, within the United States have largely been settled.

As of May 2023, while 33 US states have operational legalized sports betting, 45 states have legalized daily fantasy sports. As of May 2023, DraftKings and FanDuel operate daily fantasy contests in 44 states each. Only one state, Montana, has officially banned online fantasy sports.

Size of the industry
In May 2015, Australian market research firm IBISWorld reported that fantasy sports comprised a $2 billion industry in the United States, experiencing 10.7% annual growth and employing 4,386 people in 292 businesses.

According to the Fantasy Sports Trade Association, in 2016, the size of the fantasy sports industry reached $7.22 billion, per research by Ipsos. The study estimated that there were 59.3 million fantasy sports players in the United States and Canada as of 2016.

Industry growth
The Fantasy Sports & Gaming Association estimates that the number of fantasy sports players in the US and Canada grew from 500,000 in 1988 to 15.2 million in 2003, declining slightly over the next few years before growing to 29.9 million in 2008 and 59.3 million in 2017. In 2015, Forbes estimated that the number of yearly non-betting fantasy sports users had grown 25% since 2011. This growth encouraged hundreds of millions of dollars in investments into emerging daily fantasy sports leagues, such as FanDuel and DraftKings.

Outside of North America, the fantasy industry has also experienced a recent period of growth. The development of daily fantasy sports has encouraged growth in European markets. ESPN Super Selector launched in 2001 for fantasy cricket and had 500,000 users during the 2003 Cricket World Cup. By 2017, there were 40 million fantasy sports players in India. In 2019, the number had grown to 90 million, and in 2020, an estimated 100 million Indians participated in fantasy sports. The market leader in fantasy sports in India, Dream11, signed a four-year sponsorship deal for the IPL in 2019.

Trade associations
The Fantasy Sports Trade Association was formed in 1998 to represent the growing industry in the United States and Canada. Now known as the Fantasy Sports & Gaming Association, the organization aims to support fantasy sports, sports gambling in general, and its associated businesses and participants.

The Fantasy Sports Writers Association was formed in 2004 to represent the growing numbers of journalists covering fantasy sports exclusively. The Fantasy Sports Association was formed in 2006 as a rival trade group. However, the organization folded in 2010.

Demographics
According to the Fantasy Sports & Gaming Association (FSGA), of the 59.3 million people who played fantasy sports in the US and Canada in 2017, 43.2 million were American adults. In 2019, 45.9 million American adults participated. The FSGA estimated that 19% of American adults played fantasy sports in 2019, compared to 13% in 2014. A 2019 FSGA survey found that 81% of fantasy sports players were male, 50% were between the ages of 18 and 34 (with an average age of 37.7), 67% were employed full-time, and 47% made more than $75,000 per year. A 2015 analysis found that 89.8% were white and 51.5% were unmarried.

According to the FSGA, the most popular fantasy sport in the US and Canada is gridiron football, which is played by approximately 78% of fantasy participants. The next most popular sports are baseball (39%), basketball (19%), ice hockey (18%), and association football (14%).

Research has shown that fantasy players are also generally stronger consumers alcoholic beverages, fast food, airline travel, video games, sports periodicals, athletic shoes, and cell phones relative to the general population. The FSGA reported in 2019 that fantasy players were also far more likely to use Instagram or Snapchat, visit a sports bar, and get food delivered than the general population.

Fantasy sports television programming
Due to the popularity of fantasy sports, major sports networks such as ESPN, NFL Network, and Fox Sports have created dedicated weekly fantasy programming to analyze player performance and predict outcomes in relation to particular scoring systems. ESPN's on-demand streaming platform ESPN+ offers a fantasy program called The Fantasy Show hosted by long time staff writer Matthew Berry. The Fantasy Show utilizes puppets and comedy to present statistical information about NFL players. ESPN also aires a show on Sunday mornings during the NFL season called Fantasy Football Now. "Fantasy Football Now" airs live on Sunday mornings during the NFL season, a time when fans are making last-minute roster moves and need the latest news from around the league. Providing the latest info are analysts Matthew Berry, Field Yates and licensed physical therapist Stephania Bell, who gives injury updates.

NFL Network aires NFL Fantasy Live as an hour long program containing a consistent weekly segment list that viewers can count on to help them manage their team. NFL Fantasy Live is hosted by Cole Wright and features Michael Fabiano, Adam Rank, Marcas Grant, Akbar Gbaja-Biamila, Graham Barfield and statistics analytics expert Cynthia Frelund. Fox Sports Net aires Fantasy Football Hour on a weekly basis during the NFL season hosted by Katy Winge and features industry experts Brad Evans and Nate Lundy.

Legal issues in the United States
Fantasy sports are generally considered to be a form of gambling, though they are far less strictly regulated than other forms of sports betting. Unlike traditional sports betting, fantasy sports are generally viewed as "games of skill," rather than "games of chance," thus exempting them from gambling bans and regulations in many jurisdictions.

Federal law related to fantasy gaming
The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA), was enacted as part of the "American Values Agenda" of 2006 and was added as an amendment to the unrelated SAFE Port Act. The UIGEA generally prohibits funds transfers to businesses engaged in unlawful internet wagering. However the UIGEA does not itself define unlawful internet wagering, and expressly refrains from altering the legality of any underlying conduct other than funds transfers.

While the act does not alter the legality of any particular activity permitted or prohibited under other laws, it does contain some express exemptions to its funds transfer prohibitions. One of these exemptions from the UIGEA prohibitions is for fantasy sports that meet certain criteria. Specifically, fantasy sports that are based on teams of real multiple athletes from multiple real world teams, that have prizes established before the event starts, that use the skill of participants to determine the outcome, are exempted from the definition of a bet or wager that is the basis for requiring banks to identify and block funds transfers. According to Congressman Jim Leach, an author of the UIGEA, exemptions, particularly one for fantasy sports, were included to relieve the burden of enforcement on banks and the UIGEA does not make fantasy sports legal.

Because the UIGEA exempted fantasy sports from its definition of a bet or wager, there is a misconception that fantasy sports were made legal by the UIGEA. However the UIGEA is not a criminal gambling statute, and it specifically does not alter any criminal gambling laws and thus does not make fantasy sports legal. Federal criminal gambling statutes are found in Title 18 of U.S. Code, such as the Federal Wire Act 18 U.S. Code § 1084 (which prohibits interstate sports wagering) and the Illegal Gambling Business Act 18 U.S. Code § 1955 (which prohibits the interstate conduct of wagering activity prohibited under state law). By contrast, the UIGEA is found in Title 31 with other anti-money laundering and financial crimes statutes.

State laws related to fantasy gaming
Whether state laws can regulate fantasy sports conducted across state lines depends on whether fantasy sports are a form of sports wagering under federal law. This is because the Federal Wire Act prohibits the conduct of sports wagering in interstate or foreign commerce. With regard to intrastate sports wagering, in 2018 the United States Supreme Court in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, which had prohibited states from authorizing any wagering, lottery, betting, sweepstakes or other wagering scheme that is based directly or indirectly on games in which professional or amateur athletes participate or on the performance of any athletes in such games.

Where states have not expressly authorized fantasy sports contests, usually general gambling laws prohibit lotteries or wagering if three elements are present: an entry fee (known as "consideration"), a prize (a "reward," in legal terms) and chance. Whether fantasy sports are legal under these laws hinges on the definition of "chance" that the state applies. For some states, if skill dominates the outcome of the event, then the contest is legal, and passes what is called the "dominant factor test." Other states with a stricter definition of chance, called "any chance test," have made fantasy football illegal.

Several states have clarified that paid fantasy sports contests are games of skill and exempt from gambling laws, beginning with Maryland in 2012.

One exception is the state of Nevada, which has an exemption in PASPA to allow for sports betting. The Nevada attorney general issued an opinion that found Daily Fantasy Sports to be a form of sports wagering, similar to the current wagering offered by Nevada Sports Books. The opinions states that Daily Fantasy Sports are not illegal in Nevada; however, a sports pool license is required to conduct the activity in Nevada.

Several Attorneys General have also issued opinions that Daily Fantasy Sports are a form of sports wagering. A Florida state attorney general's opinion in 1991 called into doubt the legality of fantasy football contests, but companies have operated in the state without any legal action. Since then nine other AGs have issued options, statements or formal opinions that equate DFS with gambling.

However, several other Attorneys General have issued opinions that DFS are legal games of skill. In August 2015 in Kansas, due to uncertainty with the state's Racing and Gaming Commission position, the state's attorney general issued an opinion that daily fantasy sports was a skill game and thus permitted under state law. Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback signed legislation a month later authorizing fantasy gaming. The Attorneys General of West Virginia and Rhode Island have also issued opinions that clarified the legality of DFS and paid fantasy sports.

As of January 2022, online fantasy sports are legal in 49 of the 50 US states. The only state with a ban on online fantasy sports that is codified in statute is Montana. As of January 2022, daily fantasy sports are legal in 45 US states, with 23 of those states explicitly passing legislation legalizing the practice.

Legal cases related to use of player statistics
There have been other legal cases involving fantasy sports and the use of professional athletes' statistics for purposes of scoring.

STATS, Inc. vs. NBA
In 1996, STATS, Inc., a major statistical provider to fantasy sports companies, won a court case, along with Motorola, on appeal against the NBA in which the NBA was trying to stop STATS from distributing in game score information via a special wireless device created by Motorola. The victory played a large part in defending other cases where sports leagues have tried to suppress live in-game information from their events being distributed by other outlets. The victory also accelerated the demand for real-time statistics amid the growth of the fantasy sports industry.

CDM vs. MLBAM
The development of fantasy sports produced tension between fantasy sports companies and professional leagues and players associations over the rights to player profiles and statistics. The players associations of the major sports leagues believed that fantasy games using player names were subject to licensing due to the right of publicity of the players involved. Since the player names were being used as a group, the players had assigned their publicity rights to the players association who then signed licensing deals. During the 1980s and 1990s many companies signed licensing deals with the player associations, but some companies did not. The issue came to a head with the lawsuit of Major League Baseball Advanced Media (MLBAM), MLB's Internet company, vs. St. Louis-based CBC Distribution and Marketing Inc., the parent company of CDM Sports. When CBC was denied a new licensing agreement with MLBAM (they had acquired the rights from the baseball players' association) for its fantasy baseball game, CBC filed suit.

CBC argued that intellectual property laws and so-called "right of publicity" laws don't apply to the statistics used in fantasy sports. The FSTA filed an amicus curiae in support of CBC, also arguing that if MLBAM won the lawsuit it would have a dramatic impact on the industry, which was largely ignored by the major sports leagues for years while a number of smaller entrepreneurs grew it into a multibillion-dollar industry, and a ruling could allow the MLBAM to have a monopoly over the industry.

"This will be a defining moment in the fantasy sports industry," said Charlie Wiegert, executive vice president of CBC. "The other leagues are all watching this case. If MLB prevailed, it just would have been a matter of time before they followed up. Their player unions are just waiting for the opportunity."

CBC won the lawsuit as US District Court Judge Mary Ann Medler ruled that statistics are part of the public domain and can be used at no cost by fantasy companies. "The names and playing records of major-league baseball players as used in CBC's fantasy games are not copyrightable," Medler wrote. "Therefore, federal copyright law does not pre-empt the players' claimed right of publicity."

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision in October 2007. "It would be strange law that a person would not have a First Amendment right to use information that is available to everyone," a three-judge panel said in its ruling. The Supreme Court upheld the circuit court's decision by declining to hear the case in June 2008. In 2009, CBS Interactive won a lawsuit against the NFL Players’ Association over whether CBS had a First Amendment right to use players’ names and playing records in its fantasy sports offerings without paying licensing fees.

title: Fantasy sport