The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Proprietary software. Non-admin closure.  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  15:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed source software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is original research. 'Closed source software' is the same as 'Proprietary software'. Verification of claims was requested 18 months ago, but no refs were provided. Lester 23:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Proprietary software they are the same. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 23:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge, this is a widely used term. "Closed source" is not exactly the same as proprietary software, since proprietary software can have the source available (thus, it is not "closed source") SF007 (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Comment: The term Open source software and the Open Source Definition is not only about the code being viewable or downloadable. It's about the code being "open" for users "to use, change, and improve the software, and to redistribute it in modified or unmodified forms." The opposite of that is proprietary. If you open your software for others to modify and use as they please, you are by definition relinquishing your proprietary claim on it.--Lester 00:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Proprietary software since the former came into usage in a way similar to non-free software. "Closed source" is just shorthand to say not "Open-source" as "non-free" is shorthand for not "free software". Of course, there is no article for non-free software. It correctly redirects to proprietary software. --Ashawley (talk) 04:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to proprietary software as per Ashawley above. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to proprietary software as per above. --DanielPharos (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect As the editor who listed this AfD, I just wanted to say that I support the idea proposed by the editors above, to redirect it to proprietary software.--Lester 06:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.