Talk:Open Source

Discussions lacking a subject
We have launched a project o open source project modelling.

--

There are a myraid of Open Source projects. While I appreciate your interest in Open Source, please make project announcements on appropriate sites (eg SourceForge and FreshMeat). The context of this page is the notion of "Open Source" and the respective liscenses -- NOT a trove of Open Source software.

Moreover, if you actually bothered to read the page, you would note that the context is (incorrectly) NOT Open Source, but rather Freeware.

--Eibwen 08:28, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is there really a point to creating yet another trove?

--146.244.186.42 04:29, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

a definitve resource
I feel it is quite resonable to provide as part of Wikiversity a definitive (and updated) unbiased list of resouces for study Lobster 15:34, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * While I agree with the spirit of your statement, I disagree with its applicability. There are several established troves of freeware (and open source) software, notably C|Net's Download.com, SourceForge, and FreshMeat.  If this page is to be a definitive listing, it would have to address the myriad of individual titles available -- essentially mirroring other established troves.


 * I do not believe this to be in the interest of this wiki.


 * HOWEVER, I would not object to a listing of the leading applications for each category -- and ONLY the leading application. Anything beyond that would constitute a trove and thus be subject to the discussion above.


 * --Eibwen 04:51, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sometimes there are several leading packages which suit choice, circumstance and preference

The source links you suggest are not suitable for beginners and others who would find the layout confusing

The page is not designed as a trove but as an impartial source that does not have a commercial, open source or other agenda to promote to the detriment of end users.

Though open source is the ideal it does not always have the best available software - therefore creating a page that combines the ideas of Open Source with what is of most use, is an educational stance in the spirit of wiki books and not some pedantic insistence on the absolute.

I hope you have taken the time to add your links to the links section?

Lobster 05:10, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why a simple software listing?
Why does it seem to be the standing assumption that a book about Open Source software should be about what software is out there? I would agree with those that have commented above that we have more then enough of those in the world already, and how would that be a book anyway? There is a great deal of philosophy in the open source movement, and a great deal to be written about open source project management. To me a BOOK on open source should cover those issues. Only after those issues were discussed would a specific listing of software be included. While these issues can be hinted at in the wikipedia article, to keep to the reasonable length requirements of the pedia it makes sense that detailed discussions about the philosophy, history, debates, lessons learned, case studies and other related discussions would be the topic of a full length book (indeed there are books like that in print). Where else should a detailed discussion of the difference between the GPL and BSD licences find a proper home? Or an explination of the difference between free software and open source software? Ahc 05:55, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Ahc and everyone - I hope you will take the fat from the freeware page and wikipedia and place it here where some of the important issues - such as the politics, the future, relationships between groups, legal standing and other up to date sections such as OS NEWS can be explored -

also the removal indication -which some people with a monitor fixation are too keen on - whilst those with real personality are modifying and adapting NEEDS TO BE CLEARED or the page should go - if this indication appears I tend to abandon the page as the useless 'experts' rarely attempt to improve or advise they just criticise and remove - yuk. Fortunately some of the more experienced, genuine moderators are more understanding of how sometimes these things take time to develop. . . Good luck I hope you manage to make something of this Lobster 05:46, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm starting the process of giving this book better direction. Over the next couple days I'm going to be rather aggressive in pruning, and re-outlining the old material in the book, and starting to create new material.  If anyone had ideas I'd love to hear them.  I expect to copy/move some material from the freeware book and wikipedia articles as appropreite (at least in my opintion). --Ahc 04:47, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Logo
Lobster thanks for the logo. I personally would prefer something a little more suttle, but that's just my taste in logos. I didn't bother to create one, so I'm not really one to complain. Thanks. --Ahc 14:00, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is kind of the best I could do and just a small contribution to encourage your efforts

I am trying to get this wiki going

http://peace.wikicities.com/index.php/Main_Page

it is getting a little New Agey - so if you are an atheist your contributions would be welcome

82.69.58.117 17:28, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

open source books and links
http://phptr.com/promotion/1484?redir=1

History Section
I love it if someone familiar with the history of BSD would help out with the history section. I will work on reviewing the Wikipedia article on it for material, but I know much more about the emergance of GNU. --Ahc 03:32, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Licenses
I'm trying to figure out how to do this section. I have two questions that I'm not sure about.


 * 1) Should the section include the text of the licenses?
 * 2) If so, what are the rules about posting them?  Most (all?) are copyrighted texts, but the authors request that they be shared.  What are wikibook's rules about this, does anyone know?

--Ahc 05:31, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would suggest highlights and links to the full text To be honest I feel there two many liscences and they are confusing

so some form of line from no restrictions to open but restrictions would be useful (if indeed it can be delineated in this way)


 * Since there are so many licenses out there I was only going to look at a couple of the most popular and therefore important, GPL, BSD, Apache. They cover most of the important differences between the types.  If others should be included feel free to suggest them.
 * --Ahc 15:39, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Great info guys - here is a link that I came across and thought of this project



http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html

82.69.58.117

What is open source?
The recently added material in what is open source concerns me a little. Some suggestions from the peanut gallary would be helpful here. The material is from the OSI web site which is licenced under the Open Software Licence and the Acedemic Free Licence. OSL requires that all dirivative works are licenced under the OSL, but the AFL has no such requirements. Since Wikibooks is licenced under the GNU Free Documentation Licence it does not meet the requirements of the OSL but it should be okay under AFL. Anyone know what the write answer is here? --Ahc 20:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Things can be dual licensed, but the GNU's FDL pretty much cannot be added to anything that already had a license with any restrictions that the FDL doesn't itself impose and things licensed under the FDL cannot be relicensed under anything that adds restrictions. Nmontague 23:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Suggest Title Change
Given that this book discusses both Open Source Software and Free Software, I would suggest changing the title to FOSS or FLOSS (Free and Libre Open Source Software).