This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 02:15, 3 July 2017 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Portal talk:Free and open-source software/Archive 2) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:15, 3 July 2017 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Portal talk:Free and open-source software/Archive 2) (bot)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Skip to table of contents |
| Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Free and open-source software page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | This portal does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
|
|
 | This 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. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| Current status: Former featured portal candidate | ||||||||||||||||
Merge of Open-source license and Free-software license
Same argumentation, largely identical and in reality interchangeable used. Not really separateable. Shaddim (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Ahunt (talk) 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: Misplaced Pages:Merging#Proposing a merger. --Fixuture (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Fixuture. These topics describe the same things, but from different points of view (FSF vs OSI). Let's keep it as it is for now. --RezonansowyakaRezy (talk | contribs) 18:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Rezonansowy: Different points of view on the same thing should be in the same article. Also for their viewpoints there are The Free Software Definition & The Open Source Definition. --Fixuture (talk) 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. Shaddim (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- @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?). --Fixuture (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- @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 Shaddim (talk)
- @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?). --Fixuture (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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? Shaddim (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- @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. --Fixuture (talk) 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, Red Eclipse, where I was unable to turn the tide (I still believe the game was notable). Other instances i stumbled over Overgod, Green Mahjong, Microwar. Did someone else also see an increased frequency or pattern? If yes maybe we should become active in some way (policies?) Shaddim (talk) 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 WP:GNG, 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. - Ahunt (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback, maybe just a coincidence (will keep the eyes open). About Red Eclipse 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. Shaddim (talk) 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 WP:GNG, then fel free to give it a try. - Ahunt (talk) 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 Shaddim (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- @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. --Fixuture (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry just a small question: I have a feeling that WP:GNG is a bit inappropriate for FOSS or more general: software projects. Even projects which became an important standard or at least well-known, like Lilypond, GNU LibreJS, MediaGoblin, 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 AfC-draft 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.-Johannes Arnold (talk) 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.--Johannes Arnold (talk) 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. --Kmhkmh (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- "Widely used" needs third party sources, that for sure. But not "XYZ is a text-based application."--Johannes Arnold (talk) 08:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- My draft has now 9 internal references and 17 third party ones. Any comment? Could this pass the review? --Johannes Arnold (talk) 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 libre office or eureqa). cheers Shaddim (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- My draft has now 9 internal references and 17 third party ones. Any comment? Could this pass the review? --Johannes Arnold (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- "Widely used" needs third party sources, that for sure. But not "XYZ is a text-based application."--Johannes Arnold (talk) 08:32, 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. --Kmhkmh (talk) 07:28, 14 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)
- Yeah I did read the AfD on that article. If you think a new article can be written that will meet WP:GNG, then fel free to give it a try. - Ahunt (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback, maybe just a coincidence (will keep the eyes open). About Red Eclipse 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. Shaddim (talk) 11:26, 19 June 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 WP:GNG.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Another case Solarus, if this goes on (and it looks like) we well loss big proportions of the FOSS software content Shaddim (talk) 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 search Shaddim (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- currently up for deletion GGZ_Gaming_Zone Shaddim (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- More history on deletionism and open source 2Shaddim (talk) 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" user created content. What is a shame. :( Shaddim (talk) 10:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- For potential AfD-discussions: There is a section in WP:NSOFT 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."
re. Usage of "free" in relation to software
It sounds like the word "free" needs to be a or and break out its application. 107.190.207.144 (talk) 07:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)John Bennett107.190.207.144 (talk) 07:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Portal:Open-source software should be deleted / merged into here
Portal:Open-source software 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: Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Open-source software.
--Fixuture (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
GamingOnLinux deletion
GamingOnLinux was deleted. *sigh* Shaddim (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
Robocode
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Robocode&oldid=637979357 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 ? Shaddim (talk) 00:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- "Researchers presented RoboCode as a "problem-based learning" substrate for teaching programming."
- https://archive.org/details/PC-Games-Hardware-German-Magazine-2002-08?q=%22robocode%22+game
- https://archive.org/stream/Computer_Gaming_World_Issue_248#page/n111/mode/2up/search/%22Robocode%22
- https://archive.org/stream/ECAL2015/ECAL%202015#page/n379/mode/2up/search/%22robocode%22
Linux Game tome
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Linux_Game_Tome&oldid=745063278 Maybe revivable with more sources... Shaddim (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Neverball / neverputt
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Neverball&oldid=623005433 revivable? Shaddim (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- http://www.computerbild.de/download/Neverball-Portable-7319628.html
- hotpick of Linux format https://archive.org/stream/Linux_Format_120_July_2009/#page/n71/mode/2up/search/hotgames page 73
- http://techgage.com/article/top_10_free_linux_games/4
- 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. Shaddim (talk) 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. Shaddim (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
ardentryst
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ardentryst&action=edit&redlink=1 revivable? Shaddim (talk) 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
- https://archive.org/stream/thinkdigit-magazine-2009-08/200908#page/n5/mode/2up/search/%22bloodfrontier%22 cover disk inclusion
Shaddim (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Freeorion
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. Shaddim (talk) 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 Full Circle (magazine) 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
Exult
reliable refs:
- http://www.hardcoregaming101.net/ultima/ultima8.htm
- https://www.pelit.fi/artikkelit/ultima-v-lazarus-pc/
- https://www.kotaku.com.au/2008/01/ultima_vi_remade_in_dungeon_siege/ "the best known fan-made Ultima project is Exult."
- http://www.gamestar.de/artikel/hall-of-fame-ultima-7-das-beste-rollenspiel-aller-zeiten,3004525.html "good alternative is exult"
- 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."
- https://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2007/01/22/games_that_should_be_remastered/3 "only working port"
- 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"
- https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/03/01/a-brief-history-of-modern-retro/
notes
- ambiguity of free vs freely licensed, etc
- 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.
Logo is missed
The logo was used for this portal is missed, I don't know how to import it, the logo is this:
commons:File:Free and open-source software logo (2009).svg
Editor-1 (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, maybe I misunderstand your questino but we can use material from the commons just fine:
?!? Shaddim (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
.svg){kind=logo}
.svg){kind=link}
No, the logo must be appears within the articles, see: GNOME#See also
Editor-1 (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I saw to portal:Linux and did this changes:
But the problem is not resolved, it seems the portal main page is not sync with Portal:Free and open-source software/Introduction. Editor-1 (talk) 06:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- a server cache "purge" was needed. :) Shaddim (talk) 11:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)