Top 1200 Open Source Quotes & Sayings

Let me be clear - Microsoft has no beef with open source.

Our sense of "open" is that the authority to make decisions about that gets distributed based on merit and understanding and participation and leadership, not solely on employment or a title or a business plan. Technical colleagues will define "open" as "open standards," "interoperable" - you can find it, search it, cut and paste it, view source, mix and match - all those things that we associate with text on the Web, that you can continue to do that with audio and video and whatever's next.

One thing about open source is that even the failures contribute to the next thing that comes up. Unlike a company that could spend a million dollars in two years and fail and there's nothing really to show for it, if you spend a million dollars on open source, you probably have something amazing that other people can build on.

What the world needs most is openness: Open hearts, open doors, open eyes, open minds, open ears, open souls.

I am a patriot. I have always sought to serve my country, in theory a Republic. Learning that secrecy was evil rather than good was my first step. From there it was a steady march toward open-source everything. Now I see all the evil that secrecy enables in a corrupt Congress, a corrupt Executive, a corrupt economy, and a corrupt society. I see that the greatest service I or any other person can render to the Republic is to march firmly, non-violently, toward open-source everything.

If the DHS insists, as bureaucracies are apt to do, that open-source must be certified via a sanctioned, formal process, it will interfere with the informal process of open-source itself. It seems to me the DHS is trying to turn an open-source development project into a Microsoft (or IBM or Oracle) software development project. And we know what that means: more, not fewer, errors -- security and otherwise.

Just as every Jewish couple gets married under a canopy open on all four sides - a replica of the tent modeled for us by Abraham and Sarah - so must Jewish communities keep our tents open. This is the true source of our longevity and resilience.

The future is a process, not a destination. Richard Stallman is a guy my age. I sympathize with Richard rather more than I sympathize with Richard's open-source ideas, but the guy's a mortal human being and so is his social movement. Open-source is a means of production.

Open-source code is extremely well-adapted to service-oriented architecture.

Once open source gets good enough, competing with it would be insane.

I've learned to keep my mind open to ideas from any source.

I never imagined that the Free Software Movement would spawn a watered-down alternative, the Open Source Movement, which would become so well-known that people would ask me questions about "open source" thinking that I work under that banner.

In real open source, you have the right to control your own destiny.

Basically, if reverse engineering is banned, then a lot of the open source community is doomed to fail.

Companies have been trying to figure out what it is that makes open source work.

In open source, you really have to be near the watershed to have an impact on the source code. Customers want to be near the key contributors to the code, not a level removed.

Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement.

The name Firefox is not part of the open source licence, and that's why it's important to us.

In open source, we feel strongly that to really do something well, you have to get a lot of people involved.

Google is committed to open source and open APIs, and part of that is creating a partner-friendly place.

Are you open for this possibility of the energy source of breathing to go through you or are you collapsing? Are you open to this coming and going of air and the possibility-wea ther we sit, or stand, or lie-to allow this exchange of air through us?

Bitcoin is open-source, global, and requires no permission from anybody, so thousands of entrepreneurs are gravitating in and building their vision.

One of the questions I've always hated answering is how do people make money in open source. And I think that Caldera and Red Hat - and there are a number of other Linux companies going public - basically show that yes, you can actually make money in the open-source area.

The thing I think is often misunderstood about Ripple is people say, 'Oh, Ripple is a centralized platform.' To me, this is a legacy perspective. Ripple's technology, IRP, is open source; XRP Ledger is open source.

The Open Source theorem says that if you give away source code, innovation will occur. Certainly, Unix was done this way... However, the corollary states that the innovation will occur elsewhere. No matter how many people you hire. So the only way to get close to the state of the art is to give the people who are going to be doing the innovative things the means to do it. That's why we had built-in source code with Unix. Open source is tapping the energy that's out there.

The main languages out of which web applications are built - whether it's Perl or Python or PHP or any of the other languages - those are all open source languages. So the infrastructure of the web is open source... the web as we know it is completely dependent on open source.

If you don't have the best product, you're not going to make it in open-source.

One of the ways that Microsoft beat Apple way back in the day was that they were a lot more open; today, in the world I come from, the free software and open-source world, Microsoft is not generally viewed as open; they're viewed as proprietary.

You know, most people in the open-source world who use open-source software don't actually do builds themselves - those people just download the binaries. And so we expect that the big enterprise people will just do that and we will certainly be providing binaries that have been through full industrial-strength QA, that have been through all the conformance testing.

A lot of people who work on open-source software don't mind making money elsewhere. They aren't anticommercial.

Open platforms historically undergo a lot of scrutiny, but there are a lot of advantages to having an open source platform from a security standpoint.

Open-source is a means of production.

I think a lot of the basis of the open source movement comes from procrastinating students.

The source that creates worlds always is creating and loving, and it excludes no one. It is a source of unlimited abundance. It is a source that has no judgment.

For me, open source is a moral thing.

We have a very active testing community which people don't often think about when you have open source.

Making things open-source brings the cost down.

All of our code is open source, so it can be used for other projects.

The free sharing and teaching of open source is incompatible with the notion of the solitary genius.

I have really become a huge believer in the power of open source.

Open source is important to our orgs as a talent pool; we need better representation of women.

In open-source in general, the power lies in connecting the author of the software directly to users, eliminating the middleman.

...primal people see the objects of this world not (or not only) as solid but as open windows to their divine source.

Success for open source is when the term 'open source' becomes a non-factor in the decision making process, when people hear about Linux and compare it to Windows NT, and they compare it on the feature set and don't have much of an excuse not to use it.

Application-specific tokens, or app-tokens, are built on top of existing general-purpose blockchains like Bitcoin and Ethereum. For the first time, open-source project creators can directly monetize their open-source network.

Technology innovation is starting to explode and having open-source material out there really helps this explosion. You get students and researchers involved and you get people coming through and building start ups based on open source products.

The Library is an open sanctuary. It is devoted to individual intellectual inquiry and contemplation. Its function is to provide free access to ideas and information. It is a haven of privacy, a source of both cultural and intellectual sustenance for the individual reader. Since it is thus committed to free and open inquiry on a personal basis, the Library must remain open, with access to it always guaranteed.

I often compare open source to science. To where science took this whole notion of developing ideas in the open and improving on other peoples' ideas and making it into what science is today and the incredible advances that we have had. And I compare that to witchcraft and alchemy, where openness was something you didn't do.

My own personal dream is that the majority of the web runs on open source software.

I won't sit here and say an Open Source project will do things faster than a closed source, but one of the reasons why is that it sits on a whole lot of things that came before it.

Even without the creatures living in it, water is dangerous. We have an ambivalent relationship with water. It's the source of life, it's the source of food, but it's also a source of death, if you're not careful.

It seems to me that the natural world is the greatest source of excitement; the greatest source of visual beauty; the greatest source of intellectual interest. It is the greatest source of so much in life that makes life worth living.

The source of our love comes from within. No one out there is that source. It makes sense to go to the source.

The GNU GPL was not designed to be "open source".

The romantic myth of the artist says that you are the Source. I have no illusion about that. Native Americans don't believe they are the Source. They have access to the Source. Endless access. But don't get confused.

If an open source product gets good enough, we'll simply take it. So the great thing about open source is nobody owns it - a company like Oracle is free to take it for nothing, include it in our products and charge for support, and that's what we'll do. So it is not disruptive at all - you have to find places to add value. Once open source gets good enough, competing with it would be insane. We don't have to fight open source, we have to exploit open source.

We should probably figure out a new word for this. For us, "open" means transparent, as in "open source" - you're not locked in to what the original creator did. And in our case "open" also means distributed decision making.

My students are very special. They are my source of pride, my source of joy, my source of hope. I am terribly fond of my students.

If you could have magical binoculars that you could focus and look at the field of intention, you would see what the source of all things looks like. It's a source of love and kindness and beauty and creativity, and it's a source that excludes nothing and it's a source of unlimited abundance.

I would love to see all open-source innovation happen on top of Windows.