While both the Open Source software as well as the Free Software Movement has been in existence for quite some time now, some of you may be wondering, what's the difference? Don't both ideas basically proclaim free software for all? While some may see both ideas basically reach the same conclusion of free software for everyone, philosophically the ideas are very different.
An open source software license is specifically a copyright focused on types of use permitted for electronic media.
By introducing yet another license, it create more complexity to explain, understand, and enforce the use of software governed by these licenses.
The reality is that lack of clarity and confusing, or internally contradictory terms, makes the license potentially limited in worth, as the cost to actually enforce that license increases.
2008: The Risk Report
The Research Group has developed tools that objectivelytrack and report on operational risk associated with software applications,operating systems and hardware.I have seen a number of "Most Risky" lists that seem to besubjective and crafted by nothing more than a few Google searches and apopularity contest.
Top 25 FOSS
While I started writing this in response to https://fossbazaar.org/content/quality-matters, but seemd to warrant a separate post.
FOSS users are becoming increasingly apathetic regarding the proactive management of software obtained for nominal cost. The recent Debian example comes to mind, where for an extended period of time, OpenSSL within it had been modified with a code checking tool. Such modification removed a programmatic element important to the generation of the key, such that the total possible key combinations were effectively reduced to a fraction of the total unbroken possibilities. This problem existed for nearly two years, with countless users depending on the code, using vendor solutions to test for the same things, and yet this went undetected.