Misplaced Pages

Portal talk:Free and open-source software: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:20, 29 May 2017 edit1992 FARHAAD (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,810 edits →Logo is missed← Previous edit Latest revision as of 10:46, 7 August 2024 edit undoJohn of Reading (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers767,601 edits Reverted 1 edit by S818623 (talk): That broke the headingTags: Twinkle Undo 
(43 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Portal talk}}
{{skiptotoctalk}} {{skiptotoctalk}}
{{Talk header|disclaimer=yes|bottom=yes}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= {{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WPFS|class=Portal|importance=High}} {{WikiProject Computing |class= |importance= |free-software=yes |free-software-importance= |software=yes }}
{{WikiProject Portals}}
}} }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
Line 14: Line 15:
}} }}
{{todo}} {{todo}}
{{Portal suggestions}}
{{ArticleHistory {{ArticleHistory
|action1=FPOC |action1=FPOC
Line 34: Line 36:


|currentstatus=FFPOC |currentstatus=FFPOC
|small=yes
}} }}

== NPOV: Why does Free software has a GNU logo to it? ==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">{{Quote box
| title = NO ACTION:
| title_bg = #C3C3C3
| title_fnt = #000
| quote = We stay with the current logo – ] (])
| width = 30%|halign=left}}
:''The following discussion is closed. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from Template:Archive top-->
----
I've noticed that almost all pages about BSD-licensed operating systems and software includes this ''Free software portal'', and are missing the ]. Likewise, throughout Misplaced Pages, pretty much everything BSD is classified as ] within infoboxes and the main article text, not ] nor ]. <br/>
Yet this very portal, for example, lists that there are only two Free software operating systems that are available, both distributions of Linux that noone in the mainstream media has ever heard of, and implies that all other operating systems (those that actually bring people to this very portal), are not actually free software, after all, which is quite an ironic twist to the story, I must say! <br/>
(Getting sidelined, it's also notable that both of those distros don't do too good in the ] front, and, objectively, might as well be nominated as not passing ]{{snd}} at a quick glance, pretty much all references in their articles come from their own authors and from FSF, and, like it or not, but FSF (and this portal) are pretty much the only reason those distros exist and are known; moreover, IIRC, some from the OpenBSD project even did find quite a bit of "non-FSF-free" stuff in those "free" distributions at one point.) <br/>
Can someone kindly explain how this deviation on the use of the term "free software" from the common meaning in the English language is any different from the ''Linux vs. GNU/Linux'' arguments as explained in ''']''', and, moreover, how is this practice here does not violate ] and common sense? <br/>
Best regards,<br/>
] (]) 03:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
:{{ping|MureninC}} Here's a gallery of some logos in this portal to illustrate the idea of Free software. Basically, the first one is the most "politically correct", but I think ] – which is a FSF symbol – illustrates topic very well. I also ping other users to invite to the discussion.
<gallery>
File:Free and open-source software logo (2009).svg|Free and open-source software logo (2009), suggested by me and {{u|Ahunt}}
File:Heckert GNU white.svg|Heckert GNU white
File:Nuvola apps emacs vector.svg|Heckert GNU nuvola-style (used for now)
File:Free Software and Open Source Software Composite Logo.svg|Free Software and Open Source Software Composite logo, suggested by {{u|Kb333}}
File:Desktop computer clipart - Yellow theme.svg|Desktop computer clipart – Yellow theme
</gallery>
:--] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 01:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
::I agree that any symbol used for free software should not represent just one organization. Many, many organizations have had a hand in the development of free software and so any symbol used has to represent all of them or be neutral. - ] (]) 01:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
::'''Support 1st logo''' - however I'd prefer one that illustrates principles of the FOSS movement - such as collaboration, openness, transparency, extendability and freedom. However I couldn't find such an image. I'm totally against using the GNU as logo (if anything the logo of a broad initiative would be more appropriate). --] (]) 22:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
:'''Idea:''' I also have an idea. Why not to merge ] and ] into one FOSS portal, focusing on all ] topics? ] hasn't seen any update except redesign, which is mainly my effort, and ] looks like a copy of the first one and it's even unfinished. What do you think?--] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 01:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
::Good point! - ] (]) 01:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
::I support the change of "Free software" or "open source" to the neutral "FOSS" and the joining of the portals (Terminology needs not only here but everywhere in WP, lists etc, to be neutralized). Also, the symbol obviously needs to be NPOV'ed (the first logo looks fine & neutral enough for me). WP needs to distance itself from this terminology conflict. ] (]) 20:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
::I just noticed that in 2014 already someone replaced on the commons the category Open_source_software -> to Free software (and not FOSS) at the commons. A bot is re-categorizing therefore all content (example https://commons.wikimedia.org/search/?title=File:Open-source-vs-freeware.svg&action=history). Could not find a discussion about this. (the same for https://commons.wikimedia.org/Category:Free_and_open-source_software, Ironically the "neutral" is therefor now in the free software cat.) ] (]) 23:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
::'''Support''' - more useful, (imo) more correct and clearer. (Note: the portal should have the written-out title on top.) --] (]) 22:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

We seem to have a consensus to change the logo to the first one, so I will go ahead and do that. - ] (]) 16:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
:I asked according to the discussion for an exhange of the image too. What about further steps in unifying/neutralizing free software / FOSS etc (e.g. categories, page naming)? ] (]) 23:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

:: Most free software uses a GNU license (I can't think of any which doesn't). GNU is very much a driver of the movement too. --]<big>_</big>] 16:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
:::This is not correct. Many free software project use ] (see the "Software using the ..." license numbers). According to Black duck the GPL lost even its top position among the FOSS licenses (https://www.blackducksoftware.com/resources/data/top-20-open-source-licenses). and, yes theses are Free software licenses according the FSF standards. And there are multiple entities who drove and drive FOSS software (to use the neutral term) forward. Apache, Linux people, Mozilla, Debian, OSI, the BSDs etc etc. ] (]) 19:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
::::Even if it was still the most popular licence I still don't see that as a reason to use the logo as representative of all free software. It is just prejudicial to Misplaced Pages's neutrality to do so. - ] (]) 17:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

::::: Oh, I wasn't thinking of BSD-like licenses (like the MIT license/apache), they have a few restrictions on distribution. I'm pretty sure GNU is the "freest" license. I suppose I should have clarified that... call me a radical but I also don't like to overlap the terms "free software" and "open source software". --]<big>_</big>] 00:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::: Anyway I understand your point, but I still think gnu is a pretty good symbol for it. The GNU project coined the term "free software" and it's still a leading driver of the movement. --]<big>_</big>] 00:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::About "coined Free software", I would like to add this which shows that Free software was in use before the definition before RMS, in the meaning public domain software with source. RMS just redefined an existing term. ] (]) 21:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::: But I guess it gets at the heart of the debate between the philosophical and technical aspects of free/libre/open source software. Copyleft vs permissive, GNU/Linux vs Linux, Free software vs open source... (well, open source was in line with free but then it drifted) I think it could be a good idea to rename the project "free and open source software.", and have sections for both... stuff like copyleft/permissive and the various movements... --]<big>_</big>] 00:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::I agree that the GNU project drove a lot of the free software movement, especially in the 1980s and 90s, but it is still only part of the movement, it is controversial and it is a "brand". It would be like using a "Ford" logo to represent all automobiles. Sure Henry Ford started mass production and was very influential, but it is still a "brand" and not the whole industry. I think we can be more neutral and not pick sides or support one brand over others. - ] (]) 00:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::: Hmmmm well are you talking about the general FOSS movement, or just about free software? I'm talking about free speech, not free beer. This portal is called free software so I assumed you know, it meant free software in the sense of GNU as opposed to the broader FOSS category. If the former, I definitely think GNU should be the logo, if the latter, I agree with you that it shouldn't. --]<big>_</big>] 00:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::No we are quite on the same page about the subject. Even if we narrow the subject to "free software" and only "free software", I still think we shouldn't be using one organization's logo as the icon for the portal. Other people and organizations have made contributions, too and the GNU logo excludes them and, given the controversial nature of the organization, leaves us picking sides at Misplaced Pages, which I think we should avoid. - ] (]) 00:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::: Eh, GNU is controversial? Please enlighten me. I'm not being facetious. I think its ideals are great though it is sort of shitty that they make people put "GNU" in the name of everything. I think it's Stahlman's recompense for "GNU/Linux" never catching on. Anyway, I think this addresses a lot of issues. Like, open source movement and free software movement are two different articles... and they have overlapping content... --]<big>_</big>] 01:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Anyway, I think we should rename this portal to "Free and open-source software", much like the template ]. And I personally like the combined open source/free software logo. --]<big>_</big>] 01:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Though I think the foss one is good too. --]<big>_</big>] 01:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC) Anyway, we need to do a bit of reorganizing. --]<big>_</big>] 01:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
:: Okay, I realized. There's already an open source software portal. So it makes sense to make this separate, or to merge them. Just as the open source uses the open source logo, its natural that free software would use the "free, as in freedom" logo. --]<big>_</big>] 01:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
::: But I'm all for merging the two portals. It's silly that the free software portal would be called "free and open source software" while the open source portal would just be called "open source". --]<big>_</big>] 01:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
::::I would be in favour of merging them as well. There is too much overlap to keep them separate. Not controversial? Ask Linus what he thinks! - ] (]) 01:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
::::: Misplaced Pages can help heal the schism. Lets go to the open source portal and ask them. --]<big>_</big>] 01:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::: Hhahaha ] redirects here. I think that's hilarious. Well, a good start on how we can merge the two is this template ]. --]<big>_</big>] 01:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::: I think we should merge the projects and portals but still make distinctions where appropriate. Like we could have the category "free and open source software" and then have the subcategory "free software" inside of it. --]<big>_</big>] 01:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::Sure, I agree. - ] (]) 02:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::: I'll ping {{ping|Dsimic}}, I think we can agree on this. --]<big>_</big>] 00:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::I agree on a joining the portals "Free software" and "Open source software" to "FOSS". About joining categories, I support "Free software" as subset of a "FOSS" category. I want to add that this order is NOT the FSF order, the FSF would say FOSS is a subset of "Free software", but we should not got confused here, FOSS is the superset. Additionally I want to add that the question which software package is "OSS", "Free" or "FOSS" is also political laden and ambiguous (several points of view and factions inside a development group) why I would tend as standard to put them to a neutral FOSS category. ] (]) 09:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::'''Comment''': The relevant discussion about move of the Portal to a new name is listed in threads below. --] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 14:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
'''Comment''': So reassuming – we stay with the current logo – ] (]), right? --] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 14:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
:{{ping|MureninC|Fixuture|Ahunt|Shaddim|Monochrome Monitor}}? --] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 06:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
::''Support'', as we have no alternative currently which represents FOSS unbiased while reflecting the broadness of the movement. ] (]) 14:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
:::''Support'' - I agree, we need to avoid the appearance of endorsing particular organizations or agendas. - ] (]) 14:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
----
: ''The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from ] --></div><div style="clear:both;"></div>

== Move ] to ] ==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ]. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

The result of the move request was: '''moved'''. ] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 14:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

----

The movement's both arms are largely identical in license acceptance and practice. "Open source" is in mainstream perception as least as well know as "Free software", the usage of the unifying term would be appropriate. Would be also consequentially after the "FOSS" logo selection of the portal. ] (]) 14:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
:'''Support''' - ] (]) 15:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
:'''Comment''': no objection, ditto for the merge suggested below. &ndash;<kbd><small>] ]</small></kbd> 18:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
:'''Support''' - more correct, more representational of the (single) movement and better understood by the public. (] also suggested this further above.) --] (]) 20:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
:'''Comment''': How about renaming it to simple '']'' instead of long ''Free and open-source software''? '']'' should be mentioned here as well, but this name seems too long to me. --] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 17:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
::what about shorter FOSS? According to what I found as reception in recent years FLOSS was used less and less due to the ambiguity with dental health and even the EU where FLOSS was coined used in recent years FOSS ] (]) 20:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Shaddim}} OK, if ''FLOSS'' is too ambiguous, I'll stay with ''Free and open-source software'' and '''support''' it for now. Maybe someday the adoption of word ''libre'' will be bigger. --] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 16:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
{{done}}: Page per above talk. --] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 14:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
----
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a ]. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->

:I have posted at ] to ask for the subpages moved efficiently. -- ] (]) 14:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
:Thank you, ]! -- ] (]) 16:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

== Merge of ] and ] ==
Same argumentation, largely identical and in reality interchangeable used. Not really separateable. ] (]) 14:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
:'''Support''' - ] (]) 15:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' - those are not the same and I'm not sure how they could be properly merged (starting with the title). An open-source license is not necessarily a free-software license - there are proprietary programs whose source code is open (which aren't free to be modified however). Also merging these articles should be discussed on their talk pages and not here as described here: ]. --] (]) 20:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' Per {{u|Fixuture}}. These topics describe the same things, but from different points of view (] vs ]). Let's keep it as it is for now. --] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 18:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
::{{ping|Rezonansowy}} Different points of view on the same thing should be in the same article. Also for their viewpoints there are ] & ]. --] (]) 21:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
::this is one of the reasons why we should change these articles: currently neither of them is a neutral description of a general, broadly accepted and understood "Free + libre or/and open source" license concept, nor clearly the position of one of the parties, or representing a common agreement in FOSS (or mainstream tech). For instance, even Debian disagrees with the FSF about licensing, the formulation of the FSF is far from being accepted as consensus what would allow the incorporation of an sharp "free software license" concept. In reality they are used interchangable and overlapping. I'm also not sure if we should really to step into the wasp nest following the FSF argumentation that Open-source and Free software (licenses) are different despite the use of same license set. We should focus on the hard facts: the license lists and that these lists are more overlapping than diverging between FSF/OSI/Debian etc. and "Free software license" and "open source software license" is used therefore interchangeable by most developers. ] (]) 20:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Shaddim}} I agree and fully support your position on anything else related to the FOSS movement...but afaik these license-types are truly and unambiguously distinct: open source licenses are not necessarily free-software licenses in that many programs have their source publicized but aren't allowed to be modified or reused. When calling the article "Free ''and'' open source software licenses" it would exclude all such licenses. Maybe it would be a good idea to merge them anyway and move the info about "Unfree open source licenses" to an extra page or so...I'm just not sure ''how'' those two articles might be properly merged (or moved?). --] (]) 21:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Fixuture}} Hello Fixuture, thanks for your support. While I see your point, let try me to present my case from a different angle: if a reader comes to Misplaced Pages trying to learn about the concept "open source license" or "Free licenses" he want to learn about the essence of it, where does they come from, what makes them different from usual commercial licenses etc... all the elementary things which are the same for free and also open source licensing. This would be also my vision for a combined FOSS licensing article. The subtle differences (mostly political motivated) are not relevant enough to confuse and maybe mislead readers with two articles, where they have to understand the differences between open source, free software, FSF, OSI before they can understand the relevant technical aspects. I would present the FSF vs OSI etc and other ambiguities (open source/shared source etc) on the end of a combined article. cheers ] (])
:OK, taking the feedback into account, an adapted proposal: instead of a merge a new "free and open source software license" article as main entry point? And shrinking of Free license and open source license to their essence? ] (]) 08:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
::{{ping|Shaddim}} I think that would be a solution besides that I don't think that an additional "Free license" article would be necessary - a "Free ''and'' open source software license" & an "open source license" article should be enough. --] (]) 17:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

== Increased frequency in deletion of open-source games as non-notable? ==
I'm not sure if this already a trend but I saw (no hard statistic) this year an increased frequency of deletion of open-source video games. In one instance I was involved in the deletion discussion, ], where I was unable to turn the tide (I still believe the game was notable). Other instances i stumbled over ], ], ]. Did someone else also see an increased frequency or pattern? If yes maybe we should become active in some way (policies?) ] (]) 20:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
:I don't see any organized effort there to delete them, just the usual lack of third party sources, plus some COI editors involved in nthe one that went to AfD, which always muddies things. If you feel that you have sufficient independent third party sources that will meet ], then any of these articles can be re-created with new material and new refs, although it will be undoubtedly carefully scrutinized as a new version of a previously deleted article. - ] (]) 20:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
::Thanks for your feedback, maybe just a coincidence (will keep the eyes open). About specifically, I think here the discussion went out of control and the minds were set from the beginning against FOSS as being less notable per se, which confused and scared me; there were several good sources available also a paper. ] (]) 11:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
:::Yeah I did read the AfD on that article. If you think a new article can be written that will meet ], then fel free to give it a try. - ] (]) 20:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
::::*sigh* looks like I'm the only one having a issue with an of the better article removed which was also among the more notable FOSS games. thanks anyway ] (]) 13:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Shaddim}} Please keep on with this. ''If'' there are some news reports on it which warrant notability request it to be restored to draft space, add some references and then simply restore the article. --] (]) 16:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
::::::Sorry just a small question: I have a feeling that ] is a bit inappropriate for FOSS or more general: software projects. Even projects which became an important standard or at least well-known, like ], ], ], have a box asking for more independent sources. But thinking from scientific citation practice: Important is the usage of the source, means: If an article describes features, internal references are the appropriate source for this section, aren't they? Notability is shown if one can proof with external references that the software is in use and relevant, not if 90% of the refs are external. Therefor the number of internal references will always be higher compared to other articles which does not put in question the quality. Was there already a discussion about it?
::::::Background: My ] was declined two times for this reason and I get the feeling that the reviewers just counted internal/external references without regarding their specific use.-] (]) 06:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Well, a pity looks like interseting software and suitable article. On "independent sources", they are indeed a good idea for various reasons. The problems starts if notability is requested, and the brought in external sources are neglected as itself not reliable or broad enough etc etc. Did you searched for independent recpetion? Is this software used by scientist? Commercially? Artists? Was it reviewed by magazins? Mentioned in articles? cheers 15:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
::::::::Oh, the program is broadly used, commercially and by artists. Which I showed: I have proven that there are 2 independent projects increasing usability, 3 minor user projects, 3 big institutions using it within their publications. (Plus big institutions where I have no good source...) Now I found some more sources, especially a series of commercially selled books. What I don't have is: An independent tutorial explaining usage, a review or presentation in a magazin. It could be that it was used in a scientific journal (which belongs to the institution which uses the software what I already showed), that could be a good hint. Even now I have 50% external sources - much more is not possible I think.
::::::::But my point was a bit more general. External resources are extremely important, yes. But there are cases where independency is not the most important property of the source. The best source for software features is the documentation, which is ''not'' independent. I think this should be taken into account and formulated somehow in the guidelines. Something like: The ratio of independent sources necessary to establish notability and neutrality may depend on the subject of the article.
::::::::At the moment, if you apply the current guidelines strictly, you would have to delete half of the FOSS-articles or more. They have all these boxes asking for more independent sources. Hopelessly! Often there are no ones.--] (]) 06:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::Actually there is is plenty of FOSS and other free software that has at least small articles or some coverage in videogame, computer or IT publications (journals, magazines, websites) and that's exactly what you need. I understand your point about being widely used, but you cannot simply argue that based on personal experience, but need to illustrate that via third party sources. --] (]) 07:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::"Widely used" needs third party sources, that for sure. But not "XYZ is a text-based application."--] (]) 08:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::] has now 9 internal references and 17 third party ones. Any comment? Could this pass the review? --] (]) 13:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::I miss an explicite "reception and use" chapter where do you show that the software is relevant for user groups and is in use. I think this would address the criticism most effectively (see or ). cheers ] (]) 15:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

:::::::::::: Well "widely used" and "XYZ is a text-based application." have some room for interpretation/personal assessment depending on the specific context and personally I'd cut FOSS some slack there. As far as your draft is concerned ''at first glance'' none of the sources seem to fall under the description I gave above. They all at best only reliably verify the content but do not establisj notability. Mainly because all seem to be from development community itself or private websites without any traction. So in this form imho you may face deletion due to failing ].--] (]) 15:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

:Another case , if this goes on (and it looks like) we well loss big proportions of the FOSS software content ] (]) 17:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
:Maybe we should try pro-active to address these ref requesting taggs. Actively going to the tagged pages, improving the ref situation and removing the boxes before the articles end in an AfD. I guess there are better tools available for indenfiying them (but as always hard to find or discover), but here is a ] (]) 15:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
:currently up for deletion ] ] (]) 16:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
:More history on ] (]) 15:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
:I just noticed that FOSS seems to be side-target / collateral damage of a general fight against what is perceived by some purity faction as "unworthy" ]. What is a shame. :( ] (]) 10:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
::For potential AfD-discussions: There is a section in ] which is worth to be cited:

::"Factors that may impact on the evaluation of sources include: The way the app is distributed. It is reasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open-source software, if significance can be shown. For instance, Usenet posts may be acceptable sources for some guy's homebrewed Unix clone. On the other hand, an app that is distributed commercially or supported by businesses is a commercial product. Sources used for such apps should satisfy the breadth and depth of coverage required for a standalone commercial product article."

::--] (]) 12:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

== Change the redirect from category "open-source software to free software" ==
Currently a bot auto changes (and changed the last years) the category https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Open-source_software to Free software. I think even the FSF would disagree. For NPOV reasons, proposal: move "Free software" to "Free and open source software" and make the cats "open-source software" and "free software" subcategories for the cases when really an differentiation is required. Opinions, please? ] (]) 13:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
:'''Support''' - could you please do that? I think there's a bot that automatically does the category-changes for the articles after a short time once you moved the category. Afaik you probably need to create a ] entry before doing so though. --] (]) 17:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

== Rename article "Alternative_terms_for_free_software" ==
As it was discussed should be for NPOV reasons renamed to "Terms for free or/and open source software" or "terms for FOSS" etc. Opinions, please? ] (]) 13:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

== re. Usage of "free" in relation to software ==

It sounds like the word "free" needs to be a or and break out its application.
] (]) 07:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)John Bennett] (]) 07:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
<ref>ambiguity of free vs freely licensed, etc</ref>

== ] should be deleted / merged into here ==

] is redundant given this portal and should be deleted. Normally I'd say it should be merged into here but there's almost no content in it that could be merged - and it also doesn't have a talk page. The deletion discussion can be found here: ].

--] (]) 20:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
:Agree! --]<big>_</big>] 20:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

== GamingOnLinux deletion ==
] was deleted. *sigh* ] (]) 21:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


== TripleA on deletion == == TripleA on deletion ==
Long running and successful open source clone ] is voted for deletion. Please help provide sources and references . thanks ] (]) Long running and successful open source clone ] is voted for deletion. Please help provide sources and references . thanks ] (])
:case close, kept, thanks for contributions. The article could still need some love in exppansion, though. ] (]) 08:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


== Robocode == == Ultimate stunts ==
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Robocode&oldid=637979357 *https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ultimate_Stunts&oldid=136932601
I would like to restore this page, as it is quite popular (https://sourceforge.net/projects/robocode/files/stats/timeline?dates=2000-05-12+to+2017-05-18 1 million downloads) and I believe notable. Someone want to help me finding more good reliable secondary sources ? ] (]) 00:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC) *https://sourceforge.net/projects/ultimatestunts/files/stats/timeline?dates=2000-05-22+to+2017-05-28 540,000 downlaods
*https://archive.org/stream/Linux_Format_101_January_2008#page/n75/mode/2up linux format hotpick
:"Researchers presented ''RoboCode'' as a "problem-based learning" substrate for teaching programming.<ref>O'Kelly, Jackie, and J. Paul Gibson. "RoboCode & problem-based learning: a non-prescriptive approach to teaching programming." ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 38, no. 3 (2006): 217-221.</ref>"


== Linux Game tome == == Exult ==
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Linux_Game_Tome&oldid=745063278 *https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Exult&oldid=644855421
reliable refs:
Maybe revivable with more sources... ] (]) 19:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
*http://www.hardcoregaming101.net/ultima/ultima8.htm

*https://www.pelit.fi/artikkelit/ultima-v-lazarus-pc/
== Neverball / neverputt ==
*https://www.kotaku.com.au/2008/01/ultima_vi_remade_in_dungeon_siege/ "the best known fan-made Ultima project is Exult."
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Neverball&oldid=623005433
*http://www.gamestar.de/artikel/hall-of-fame-ultima-7-das-beste-rollenspiel-aller-zeiten,3004525.html "good alternative is exult"
revivable? ] (]) 21:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
*http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/129994/the_history_of_computer_.php?print=1 "Thankfully, gamers can play Ultima VII using Exult, a GPL-licensed program that attempts to recreate the game on modern operating systems."
*http://www.computerbild.de/download/Neverball-Portable-7319628.html
*https://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2007/01/22/games_that_should_be_remastered/3 "only working port"
*hotpick of Linux format https://archive.org/stream/Linux_Format_120_July_2009/#page/n71/mode/2up/search/hotgames page 73
*http://exult.sourceforge.net/letters.php "Just so that you know. On a personal level I am very excited to see you doing this. Its tough to see games fade out, when the computers or operating systems required to play them go away. - Richard Lord British Garriott"
*http://techgage.com/article/top_10_free_linux_games/4
*https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/03/01/a-brief-history-of-modern-retro/
*http://toucharcade.com/2008/07/08/neverball-a-free-alternative-to-super-monkey-ball/
*http://www.gry-online.pl/S048.asp?NUMER=561
*https://archive.org/stream/tux-magazine-issue-10/tux010#page/n53/mode/2up/search/%22neverball%22+

== infobox video games ==
I try to start a discussion to add (re-add?) fields from the general software infobox which would also (or especially) FOSS games, e.g. license and more differentiated release model. ] (]) 13:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/Template_talk:Infobox_video_game
:It seems the general software infobox is better suited for our needs. ] (]) 11:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

== ardentryst ==
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ardentryst&action=edit&redlink=1 revivable? ] (]) 18:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
hotpick linuxformat https://archive.org/stream/Linux_Format_120_July_2009/#page/n71/mode/2up/search/hotgames page 73

== Red eclipse ==
I'm still think red eclipse should be revived... some more material for that.
http://deletionpedia.org/en/Red_Eclipse
https://red-eclipse.softonic.com/ downloads
http://www.computerbild.de/download/Red-Eclipse-7140219.html
http://www.macworld.co.uk/download/games/red-eclipse-156-3249846/ review
https://sourceforge.net/projects/redeclipse/files/stats/timeline?dates=2000-05-18+to+2017-05-24 600,000 downlods via sourcforge alone
https://archive.org/stream/Linux_Format_145_June_2011/#page/n27/mode/2up/search/red+eclipse 8/10 review
] (]) 11:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

==Freeorion ==
] was created and deleted already multiple times (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FreeOrion), yet, I think with at least 700,000 downloads and broad recpetion it should have an article. ] (]) 15:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
*https://sourceforge.net/projects/freeorion/files/stats/timeline?dates=2000-05-21+to+2017-05-27 700,000 download
*http://www.chip.de/downloads/FreeOrion_23384077.html 70,000 downloads
*https://en.softonic.com/author/freeorion 15,000 downloads
*http://www.computerbild.de/download/FreeOrion-423351.html 17,000 downloads
*https://www.heise.de/download/product/free-orion-66724 2000 downloads
*http://www.spacesector.com/blog/2009/07/freeorion-a-free-open-source-4x-space-strategy-game/ review
*https://www.welt.de/spiele/article140598796/Diese-Spiele-Klassiker-haben-Fans-zum-Leben-erweckt.html welt.de number 32 -> usable for more games / fan remakes
*https://www.welt.de/spiele/gallery146162734/Diese-Weltraum-Spiele-sind-kostenlos.html
*https://web.archive.org/web/20071112070922/http://en.wikipedia.org:80/FreeOrion
*https://magazine.odroid.com/wp-content/uploads/ODROID-Magazine-201511.pdf glshim port of freeorion
*http://www.downloadfreemacgames.com/game/free-orion
*https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FreeOrion_(3rd_nomination)
*http://www.freeorion.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2576 (archive, sources)
*http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/how-fans-are-keeping-great-old-games-alive-644801
*https://fedoramagazine.org/install-freeorion-fedora/ fedora magazine
*http://web.archive.org/web/20080530063851/http://sysadminonline.ru:80/42-best-games-for-linux-strategy/
*http://www.pcworld.pl/ftp/freeorion-mac.html polish pcworld review
*http://softwaresanta.com/sssmf/index.php?topic=1910.0 softwaresnata pick (?)
*http://www.freewaregenius.com/an-overview-of-free-turn-based-strategy-and-war-games/
*https://archive.org/details/LinuxRocksCesLasS20e02 las review
*http://downloads.informer.com/freeorion/awards/ awards...
*http://www.freeorion.org/index.php/Media_coverage
*http://dl.fullcirclemagazine.org/issue14_en.pdf ] Issue #14 - June 2008 by Andrew Min page 34 "Top 5 space games - freeorion"

== Ultimate stunts ==
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ultimate_Stunts&oldid=136932601
https://sourceforge.net/projects/ultimatestunts/files/stats/timeline?dates=2000-05-22+to+2017-05-28 540,000 downlaods
https://archive.org/stream/Linux_Format_101_January_2008#page/n75/mode/2up linux format hotpick


==notes== ==notes==
{{reflist}} {{reflist}}


== Notice from the ] ==
== Logo is missed ==

The logo was used for this portal is missed, I don't know how to import it, the logo is this:


] is back!
]


The project was rebooted and completely overhauled on April 17th, 2018. Its goals are to revitalize the entire portal system, make building and maintaining portals easier, support the ongoing improvement of portals and the editors dedicated to this, and design the portals of the future.
] (]) 13:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
:Sorry, maybe I misunderstand your questino but we can use material from the commons just fine: ] ?!? ] (]) 23:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


As of May 2nd, 2018, ] is at 60 editors, and growing. You are welcome to join us.
No, the logo must be appears within the articles, see: ]


There are ''']''' for revitalizing the portals system as a whole, and for improving each component of portals. So far, 2 new dynamic components have been developed: ] and ].
] (]) 05:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


''']''' for building and maintaining portals, including automated portals that update themselves in various ways.
I saw to ] and did this changes:


And, if you are bored and would like something to occupy your mind, we have a wonderful ''']'''.


From your friendly neighborhood ]. Hope to see you there. Sincerely, <span class="nowrap">&nbsp;&nbsp; &mdash; '']''&nbsp;&nbsp; </span> 07:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
But the problem is not resolved, it seems the portal main page is not sync with ]. ] (]) 06:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 10:46, 7 August 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the portal about Free and open-source software.
Content dispute discussions should take place on the appropriate article's talk page. For discussions about general portal development, please see the WikiProject Portals talk page.
If you are a regular maintainer of this portal, please add yourself to this list. Archives: 1, 2
Skip to table of contents
This portal does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconComputing: Software / Free and open-source software
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by WikiProject Software.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by Free and open-source software.
WikiProject iconPortals  
WikiProject iconThis page is a portal. Portals are within the scope of WikiProject Portals, a collaborative effort to improve portals on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PortalsWikipedia:WikiProject PortalsTemplate:WikiProject PortalsPortals
??? This portal has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This portal has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
See also: List of Portals
Note icon

  • This portal is manually maintained by Newslinger. Please contact these user(s) when you plan to make significant changes.
  • This portal has a non-standard layout.
  • This portal's subpages have been checked by an editor, and are needed.
Please take care when editing, especially if using automated editing software, and seek consensus before making major changes. Learn how to update the maintenance information here. (January 2019)

To-do list for Portal:Free and open-source software: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2016-05-30

Recommendations to improve page to featured portal status

These below tasks are to improve the portal, hopefully to get it to Featured portal status. For tasks related to improving wikipedia's free software articles, see Portal:Free software/Contribute.

  1. Add images to the portal, but no "fair use" images, they're not allowed on portals (they're only allowed on articles). Suggestions are at #All images removed - advice sought
  2. Replace the "selected articles" box with something that includes selected articles plus news. Suggestions are at #Add "news" and fold in "selected article"
  3. Add references to History of free software - since it's linked to from the portal intro
Automated portal content suggestions (purge)The following suggestions have been automatically generated as content that might be suitable for the portal, subject to review by a human editor. Please do not mindlessly copy items to the portal page without first checking that the suggestions are appropriate.
Recent Did you know? items

No recent additions

Recent In the news items

No recent news

Featured, valued, and quality images (on Commons)

Open a link, then click the "Do it" button. If there are results, you can click the "Thumbnails" button to preview all the images.

Articles
Former featured portal candidateThis portal is a former featured portal candidate. Please see the links under Portal milestones below for its original nomination page and why the nomination failed.
Portal milestones
DateProcessResult
June 10, 2006Featured portal candidateNot promoted
February 8, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
May 17, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured portal candidate

TripleA on deletion

Long running and successful open source clone TripleA is voted for deletion. Please help provide sources and references for the disucssion. thanks Shaddim (talk)

case close, kept, thanks for contributions. The article could still need some love in exppansion, though. Shaddim (talk) 08:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Ultimate stunts

Exult

reliable refs:

notes

Notice from the Portals WikiProject

WikiProject Portals is back!

The project was rebooted and completely overhauled on April 17th, 2018. Its goals are to revitalize the entire portal system, make building and maintaining portals easier, support the ongoing improvement of portals and the editors dedicated to this, and design the portals of the future.

As of May 2nd, 2018, membership is at 60 editors, and growing. You are welcome to join us.

There are design initiatives for revitalizing the portals system as a whole, and for improving each component of portals. So far, 2 new dynamic components have been developed: Template:Transclude lead excerpt and Template:Transclude random excerpt.

Tools are provided for building and maintaining portals, including automated portals that update themselves in various ways.

And, if you are bored and would like something to occupy your mind, we have a wonderful task list.

From your friendly neighborhood Portals WikiProject. Hope to see you there. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   07:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Categories: