I had a very frustrating time doing what I've done so far, but I've found the solution. If your changes don't appear, try the "Purge server cache" button that's at the end of the page.
Note: The selected article box cannot contain a logo which is used under "fair use". This is part of WP:FAIR - no fair use outside of the article space. This is portal space. If someone knows of an exception, please update this.
I suggest, as a guideline only, that selected articles should stay for at least 7 days before being changed.
Since the GNU and GNU Project articles are both newly formed (due to being split), it is a good idea for the portal to ask for help with them.
Version 3 of the GPL should be discussed somewhere, but I don't know if it will just go in a section on the GPL article, or if there should be a seperate article for GPLv3, or an article for the drafting process, or what.
Awesome work creating the portal, Gronky. For those of you reading this, Gronty took my suggestion to heart about creating an English Free Software Wikiportal. (Original post was from Talk:Free_software#A_Free_Software_Wikiportal.)
Yeh, if you want to make Damn Small Linux a featured article, go for it. The more momentum we gather, the sooner this portal will be top notch. Gronky00:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Where should this be linked from?
I know that this portal is not yet ready, but when it is, what then?
Actually, I guess other free software related meta sections of wikipedia, such as category pages, should have a link, and articles related to free software should have a link in the "See also" section (which most articles have). No? Gronky22:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I have been adding links on everything about free software and free sofrware itself. //Ae:æ23:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
A new design?
Now that the content is in place, I was thinking about the design. Free software has three major subtopics: There's the philosophy, then there's the software, and there's the law. I guess the law and the philosophy can be grouped. So I thought it would be good to have two columns: "Technology", and "Philosophy & Law". But then where do meta things, like Featured Article and Task List go?
The second design I thought of was to have the first column for learning about free software topics, and the second column for helping to improve free software related articles in Wikipedia. By chance, the current layout resembles that design right now. Suggestions/comments sought. Gronky23:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The logos
Good work on the whole, but I just want to warn you about the images. I think they're destined to look silly. Some people will have wider windows than the others, and for people with narrower windows, if you have more than their window-widths worth, it'll wrap around and look silly. On the other hand, for people with wider screens there'll be this great big gap on the right leaving it unbalanced. Maybe it'd be better (particularly if there's a great many to add) if we ran them down the side of the screen or something? —Felix the Cassowary23:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I tried to put them vertical just now, but I couldn't get the html right. If you (or anyone) know the magic, go ahead. I agree that making the portal more portable is a good idea. I centred the images so that they shouldn't look too silly on wide or narrow displays, but you talk about a "great big gap on the right" - are they not centred by your web browser? Any idea of how to fix that? Gronky15:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing these out. I've added both to the Wikipedia featured articles box. There are probably plenty of other free software articles that have also been missed. I've also added a note below reserving/suggesting OpenBSD for the next feature. Gronky22:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Focus
One thing for thought, the conflict between the Free Software people, Open Source and free software/open source people. Anyone who comes from a BSD background completely disagrees with the FSF's view of Free, that whole redefining "free" thing riles most of us, and the less said about the OSI the better. Perhaps expanding this portal so it's not Richard Stallman's soapbox would make it more popular. Janizary06:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Can you point me to where I can learn about the BSD community's definitions of "free" and their position on FSF's definition? Thanks. Gronky04:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's pretty much free, as in free. No restrictions. Whereas Free appears to be free, as long as you agree with how we define free, which is to say quid pro quo if you're doing anything with it. Janizary08:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Basically we view the Free Software Foundation's point of view as being false altruism, where the FSF says, "here's our stuff, if you change it, you're going to have to give it back," the BSD folk say, "here's our stuff, don't go suing us or claiming you did this all on your own." The Free Software "Freedoms" are not so much freedoms as restrictions imposed on people, forcing others to redistribute derivatives is the very opposite of freedom and thus that really pisses most of us off. Most strongly agrivating is when fans of Free Software say that that is freedom, because we see that it's not, it's not evil, but it is wrong and the behaviour of the FSF in pushing it's agenda really angers many of us, trying to tell everyone that doesn't do things their way that they're unfree and wrong is not a way to make friends. Nate01:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess I always brush over the credit and don't sue part. That part isn't really intrusive, but they are still restrictions. Janizary01:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It sounds like FSF and BSD kinda agree on the definition of free software, but they disagree over whether copyleft violates the defintion or protects free software. I've been a bit busy recently but I'm still looking into this. Gronky23:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security. - Ben Franklin, American Founding Father
This swings in another way, I think, those who would give up a liberty for extended power, deserve neither liberty or power. Taking away someone's rights and declaring that the preservation of another's rights seems wrong. Nate00:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Not taking rights, just not granting them. The FSF gives only the rights they believe in, I just belive in more rights than they do. Janizary05:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
It looks like we're getting into who's right and who's wrong here. We have to keep in mind that discussions and explanations should be part of articles and the Portal just points to them. So the free software article and the free software licenses article should contain the details. I've just started such a section in the free software licenses#BSD_philosophy article. I'll add more to it when I can, but yous are probably more qualified for that. I've also added a note to the free software article, but this also needs expanding on. I'm going to add a task to the portal's Task List about this. How's that? Gronky12:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that's probably the nicest way I've ever seen it worded, it reads biasless, which is something I can't do worth a damn. Janizary18:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
A Gnu head logo has been added to the intro box, but I think it's a bad idea and I'd like to ask for comments. I do think that the Gnu head is the closest thing that free software has to a logo, and when a logo is necessary, like when linking from the "related portals" box on Portal:Information technology, then I think a Gnu head should be used, but when it's not necessary, link in the intro box, I think the portal will be acceptable to more people if it is left unbranded since not all supporters of free software are supporters of the GNU project. Comments? Gronky21:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
To me, the term "free software" automatically associates it with GNU and the logo doesn't really do much harm, although I think it would be better in the terminology box rather than at the head of the article. NicM08:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC).
While I don't associate free software with the GNU, I do associate Free Software with it. But much like the popular usage of Linux as the name of an operating system, it's a common perception and makes sense to use. Even if not entirely right to call Debian "Linux", most people will anyways, even though Debian calls itself GNU/Linux, so it make sense to use it so that the mundane are able to find what they're looking for. Janizary17:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, but I recommend the logo be removed from the intro box if it starts to cause friction in the future. Gronky04:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I've just stumbled into this portal, and immediately wondered "Why the GNU?". That said, nothing more appropriate comes to mind immediately, but it is of my opinion that to use the GNU logo here would be equivalent to using Tux or the FreeBSD daemon - we're using it because there's nothing else, but what we're using is far from representative of the content of the portal. Fraser Tweedale08:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, GNU is a large part of Opensource, but as you said, not all. I think we should have a graphic somehow combing the OSI, GNU, TUX, BSD, and other opensource logos into one. ~LinuxeristA/C/E/L/P/S/T/Z13:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I found a badge with a Tux, a GNU, and a BSD logo and have photographed and replaced the GNU graphic with it. Is that an improvement? If not, I will revert. Gronky12:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
That may be a copyright problem, do the prominence of the logos first of all. However, I could make something similar, and multi-license it. ~LinuxeristA/C/E/L/P/S/T/Z14:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Logos are fair use according to Wikipedia policy. The photographer, photo-retoucher, and uploader (me in all cases) have disclaimed any copyright claim to the work. This is about as problem-free as an image can be. The other option is the one you pointed out, that one of us could make up their own logo, possibly combining some existing logos - but the photograph has the advantage that it documents the existence of something from the real world. Gronky15:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
First of all, the logos are highly prominent. Both the creators of the prominent logos and the creator of the item both have copyright claims, which have probably not been released to you. This would be a derivative work of both. In the US Copyright Act of 1976 (Section 101) it states this:
""A derivative work is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work” (...) The owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (...) (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work(...)"
Regardless of the copyright problems and without impugning your efforts, I think this image is pretty ugly. It doesn't look quite in focus, the black background looks awful, and the logos are a bit tiny and hard to make out. NicM07:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC).
What about something like http://www.nicm.ath.cx/~nicholas/fs.png? I made the mistake of creating it a little small, but you get the idea. The question of copyright still stands, however. If necessary, we maybe be able to create something similar by combining four or five seperate images on the page without violating copyright. NicM07:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC).
I think including organisations is a bad idea, particularly one which has done so little. Gronky12:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the organisation is fine, and a copyright situation could be worked out, but the graphic's quality isn't great... I'll try something. ~LinuxeristA/C/E/P/S/T/Z13:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
This is probably the best yet, although I don't see why GNU gets a smaller presence. The GNU project has been working for 23 years, made GCC, Glibc, GDB, coreutils, Bash, Emacs, Classpath, binutils, GIMP, GNOME, and many other important project, it developed philosophy, developed the core licences (GPL, LGPL) and matured the legal study of freedom-through-copyright, and has done constant awareness work. Sure, it rarely gets credited for most of that, but Wikipedia is under no obligation to mirror this ignorance in the mainstream media. (Wikipedia should not hide that this under-crediting happens, but that's a different issue.) Gronky14:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
This is great! The only thing is, as Gronky says, it would be nice if the GNU was larger. I'd even make the GNU biggest and have the other two slightly smaller, sort of behind it. NicM15:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC).
Sadly, the GNU is the smallest when colourised. There is a version in black and white, but then it would have less presence, even if larger, and off-balance it. I'll see what I can do when I get back though. ~LinuxeristA/C/E/P/S/T/Z17:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The logo does not aim to represent every functional free software project in existence. It contains a handful of logos that are well known and quickly associated with free software. Three seems a good number. More, and the logos would have to be so small that people wouldn't be able to make them out. Fewer, and it's impossible to show a broad enough sample that would be found acceptable by most. The current sample has been found acceptable by most so far. Gronky18:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Four also seems like a good number too. And why should only UNIX or pseudo-UNIX system be there?
agree, that whale is cool, let's add it now!!!!!!!
The logo needs something other than those *x OS (Linux, Unix etc.) And that Gnu looks stupid. It is typically that many of those people are egoistic, and hates espesially Microsoft, and maybe FreeDOS too.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.199.54.130 (talk • contribs).
As stupid as the GNU logo is, making that kind of comment is not likely to convince us of anything. And you'd be better off trying for the logo of another major piece of free software like Apache, rather than something relatively little-used and with a barely known logo like FreeDOS. Although I too think that three is enough logos. NicM08:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
Well, I guess I may as well start the discussion here since it's started on the front page of the portal, the proposed wikiproject would have to be categorized somewhere, but I think it could be in multiple areas. Anyways, I think if there's a wikiproject done for free software it should cover the broader terms rather than the FSF specific points, that would mean freeware and shareware would be dealt with right along side ipf and netcat. I'd be fine with contributing here and there, but until I finish the stuff I'm intent on, my contributions would be half-assed. Janizary18:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Interwiki links are reserved for other languages. Also, Wikinews mentions are only added in the case of an article related to a Wikipedia article I believe. ~LinuxeristA/C/E/L/P/S/T/Z14:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Open source is quite commonly used as a hoax term for deceiving people to think that a piece of non-free software is free. Term open source refers to the availability of soure code and doesn't guarantee any rights for using it. The term also poisons the terms FLOSS and FOSS. All of these three terms refer to both free software and non-free software, as long as the source code is revealed.
This makes me think that the safest way would to not use these terms at all. If they can mean both free and non-free, software why use them when talking about software freedom. There are uses for them when people are talking about revealing or not revealing the source code, but this is obviously not the case with this portal. --Easyas12c17:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
These terms are clearly not alternative terms because they have a completely different meaning. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia this kind of accuracy is imho very important. --Easyas12c17:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that "Free software" is more commonly confused for "freeware" than "F/OSS"/"FLOSS"/"open source" are confused with software that happens to allow you to look at the source. For the two terms that combine "free" and "open source", one key is that they're usually seen as "free and open source" (rather than "or"). Using either "free" or "open source," one needs to be explicit about what they mean. If they say "open source, as defined by the OSI licenses," there is no confusion. See also Category talk:Free software#Free vs. open source. --Karnesky17:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
The term "open source" is often abused, and, IMO, it's proponents don't do enough to counter such abuse, but it remains true that the term "open-source software" was proposed as a replacement label for "free software", and Open Source Initiative was founded to promote the term as part of "a marketing program for free software".[1] By definition, it's an "alternative term" for free software. I do recommend that people avoid using the term "open source", but Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. Gronky17:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Just because it was originally proposed as a replacement label and because that nitwit ESR says so, doesn't mean that is actually what it means or is used for. All these terms have several different interpretations and as many Wikipedia readers are not educated or interested in the often tedious and meaningless bickering over the meaning du jour that goes on in the OSS world, the most obvious meaning is often not what one might prefer. I think that if the distinction is important in the context the term is used, do as Karnesky suggests and phrase it such that it is clear, otherwise use whichever one comes most easily, they both encompass pretty much the same ideas to most people. NicM18:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC).
"Open source" is an abused term, but the abusers don't claim that the term has a different defintion, they just use it misleadingly. So OSI are the only people who have published a well known definition for "open source", and OSI have made clear that "open source" is simply an alternative label for "free software". So the terms are similarly defined and interchangeable, and the definitions are theorectically interchangeable too. Both terms are therefore also interchangeable with FOSS and FLOSS. There are many confusions, and these should definitely be noted (I think this is what we all agree on). Alternative terms for free software, I think, is the correct place to describe all the terms and the various confusions and abuses.
"free software" gets confused with no-cost, "open source" gets confused with viewable-source, FOSS gets confused as being no-cost open source (the "free" being a qualifier, so FOSS is the costless subset of general open source), FLOSS has the same problem as FOSS plus some people think the L stands for "Linux"! Gronky21:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
No, open source is abused by the OSI, in the same manner as the FSF abuses the term free software. You cannot make a definition for a word that already exists and tell everyone that your new definition is the right one, which is exactly what both organizations have done. Open source is the availablility of the source, pure and simple just as free software is software which is free. Regardless of how well known something is, the original meaning of the term remains. Anyways, the opinion of the OSI is that open source is another name for free software, but the FSF disagrees, so the terms aren't really interchangable even if we just agreed with the FSF and the OSI. Since one means freely available and one means the source code is available at their core, there is a fundamental difference. 65.94.60.6100:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Your first point applies to words, but "free software" is a term (some people capitalise the F and S to highlight this). For your second point, please back up this claim: "the opinion of the OSI is that open source is another name for free software, but the FSF disagrees".
FSF say that "open source" is an inferior term, and they ask people not to use it, but on definitions they say: "The official definition of ``open source software,'' as published by the Open Source Initiative, is very close to our definition of free software; however, it is a little looser in some respects, and they have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive of the users."
The description "very close ... however ... a little looser" is the only expression of dissimilarity in defintion, and the "little looser" is only a qualifier for the primary definition "very close". The few licences which OSI have accepted and which FSF have rejected have generally only been used by software with marginal user bases, so in practice, the differences in definition usually have no effect. The rest of that essay ( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html ) only talks about similarity and compatibility. Gronky09:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
"Free Software" <> "Open Source" as Open Source does not have the same aims as software freedom. Please do not say that "open-source software" is a synonym for "free software". The goals of open source only relate to practicalities. The goal of free software is freedom. Open source is an ambiguous term and free software encompasses open source. JulianYap00:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The differences you are pointing out are differences between the "free software movement" and the "open-source marketing campaign" - not "free software" and "open source". "open source" is the term that the open-source marketing campaign uses to co-opt the software developed by the free software movement while hiding the values of the free software movement. The Open Source Initiative even defines "open source" as "a maketing campaign for free software". Gronky14:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Gronky, yes, I agree with you. However, are you agreeing that we should remove the term 'open source' as an alternative term? My objection is that 'open source' and the marketing campaign behind it takes the form of promoting practically (not ethics). rms talks about it in a 2002 interview here, in his essay Why "Free Software" is better than "Open Source" and here is where the FSF requests you not lump the terms together. I also looked up the full quote to the OSI definition you refer to. --> "The Open Source Initiative is a marketing program for free software. It's a pitch for "free software" because it works, not because it's the only right thing to do. We're selling freedom on its merits. We realise that many organisations adopt software for technical or financial reasons rather than for its freedom. Many users learn to appreciate freedom through their own experience, rather than by being told about it." JulianYap19:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Since "open-source" was invented to provide an alternative term for free software (one that hides the idea of freedom), I think we have no option but to say that it is an alternative term for free software. Wikipedia has to reflect facts rather than what RMS recommends, or what I prefer, or what you prefer. That said, I don't think RMS requests that people not lump the terms together - he requests that people not lump FSF's accomplishments in with the activities of proponents of the open source philosophy, he asks that the free software movement gets credit for it's work (so that beneficiaries of that work might see that the free software movement is practical and worth supporting). But maybe there is a change that needs to be made to the article, maybe the article should be clearer that these are not necessarily "equal alternatives" - but making that change has to be done really carefully because this topic tends to snowball and the article is not about termA vs. termB, it's meant to be more like a timeline. Gronky19:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
One the image in the selected article box, and the two images in the terminology box, there are thick light blue boarders on the left and bottom edges of the images. Anyone know how to get rid of them while still having captions for the pictures? Gronky20:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
On the Categories --> Types of Software list on the right side of the portal, Category:Educational_software is included as one of the entries, but that's a general category of educational software, and not all of the software on that list is free software. Should it stay?
Digital Rights Management (called Digital Restrictions Management by some critics)
Although I am by no means a supporter of DRM, quite the opposite in fact, it feels to me that's pushing POV to have in the front page for the portal. I decided to ask others rather than edit right away, because it's something that could potentially get into very heated editing.
Pauric
I don't see what's POV about that. The statement is true, and it's particularly relevent because "restrictions" is the reason why this is an issue for the free software community. Gronky19:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Granted, but that's mentioned in the article, there isn't really need to add in a general critisism of DRM in the link to it on the main portal. Would you argue that "Digital Restrictions Management" in its self isn't a POV term? Pauric19:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
You could, but that would be just as POV - The technology is called "Digital Rights Management," whether you like DRM or not. I'm no fan of DRM myself, but it's not an inaccurate name - it refers to managing the rights of the content's creators, not the rights of the users. Whether it manages those rights in a reasonable (or even truly legal, given that, in the US, DCMA flies in the face of fair use) manner is an issue that should probably go in the DRM article, and shouldn't be touched on here. —Erik Harris16:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
OS Reviews
Hi,
I'm the editor of OS Reviews, a website dedicated to reviewing free software. I rely heavily on Wikipedia for providing further information to the articles and would like to give something back. Since OS Reviews is licensed under the GFDL as well, you are invited to use all articles and images in Wikipedia. For example. you could use my articles to extend stubs like Beamer (LaTeX), Strace, LAPACK or Bacula.
I hope someone gets around to doing this. For now, I've just added links to the relevent reviews for those 4 articles. Gronky15:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on the rules, so point them out if this portal crosses them, but most (or at least many) portals have boxes for stubs and a box for "todo". For this portal, I've pushed those down to the bottom so that the most visible part of the portal can be solely a navigation aid. Starting a free software wikiproject might be a good idea, but I'm not convinced there's enough momentum for it right now, it could end up dormant like many other wikiprojects. Gronky08:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
The difference between this portal and others is that it actively advertises itself as a "place to co-ordinate" and that it possesses a contibution section far more extensive. A portal's primary activity is to promote quality content, and while it is true you have given this function priority, the portal still gives excessive attention to contribution-encouraging sections, which are secondary and minor concerns. It's a fair point you raise about the potential for a corresponding project to stagnate. The level of attention in this area is probably not sufficient for specialisation at this stage. However, in realising this and the fact a WikiProject is required, perhaps now would be a good time to consider re-awakening Wikipedia:WikiProject Software as an umbrella forum for associated topics – free software, malware (which could merge its project), and software in general. WP:COUNCIL would happily assist in setting up such a project.--cj | talk09:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Starting a wikiproject, or reawakening a sleeping one with mergers, doesn't sound like much fun. It sounds like a bureaucratic burden, and I'm already at my limit of time/energy that I'll give to Wikipedia. I haven't done a wikiproject before, so I could be wrong about the burden, but I'm not convinced that a wikiproject is required, or that this portal gives excessive attention to contribution-encouraging sections. Gronky10:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I came to the free software page looking for programming language compilers and/or interpreters. It seems there is no such category. Should there be one? Is there a reason why it doesn't exist already? JeffreyMeunier13:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I've begin creating the beginnings of a wikiproject focused on organising articles about open source software. Anyone can sign up and begin building the wikiproject into something that can greatly improve the articles about open source software and their licences and creators. See you there!--Lotrgamemast22:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I have described my issue in the talk about it Talk:Core_dump. Basically, I am dealing with people who are repeatedly deleting the content of this node. Need more free and open source people to come and help me out!!!
I've asked for the article on Group-Office to be undeleted. If you would like to comment, specifically concerning the notability of the software, you may do so here.
The capitalization of the first letter of most words has been updated. If you feel the need to revert this page in some way, please do by re-inserting the " | " between the text, instead of just hitting revert. Changing all those single letters is a bit of work.
After examining the way this change affects the page layout, I think it will be okay to keep. I will admit there is some blank space, but in my opinion it is a reasonable tradeoff for a neat list, which can be browsed easily.
The next task will be to tidy up the text. Most add capitals at the beginning of some words.
I think it might be about time for this list to get cleaned up. If no one has objections, I'm going to simply arrange it into a neater list. Reading accross and having some entries start on one line, and end on another is simply a pain to look at.
Bear in mind, I won't actually make the edits live until I'm finished editing. I suspect this edit will take approximately 20 minutes to finish.
If it doesn't look good, after, I simply won't update the static section.
That box isn't supposed to be a complete list of free software OS's, it's just a summary showing the most well-known or interesting-and-complete ones. Gronky12:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Aros is at lest as complete as haiku and is of historical importance due to the fact that it is a remake of the !very! prolific Amiga OS so it should be on the front page. The similarity of all the front page OS's is that they; have historic and cultural significance, have a loyal following, and poses the ability to achive currant wide spread acceptance utility and completion. Aros has all of these qualities therefor it should be on the front page.
Nice, there's that one also. The message is a bit different.
This user uses free software wherever and whenever possible.
Browse by OS
It would be useful to have a metadata field for operating systems. This would narrow down a user's search for software that they can install on their computer. Maybe something simple along the lines of: Linux, Windows, MacOS X, Unix-based. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.42.113.237 (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC).
I can't think of how to implement that. A lot of free software is ported to other systems, so the system would have to allow packages to be associated with multiple machines. There's also the problem that wikipedia breaks things down by topic, not by package, so some articles discuss collections of free software where the supported platforms are not the same. GNU Build System is an example of that. A harder problem is that some articles discuss multiple implementations which are by different groups, the make article is one example. It includes GNU make, which is widely ported, and also other make implemenations including proprietary ones. So wikipedia isn't designed to solve the problem you want to solve - it would be good if it could be made solve that problem without interfering with the main goal, but I'm not sure it's possible. Something like http://gnu.org/directory would be a better starting place, since that is designed to give information on a per-package basis. Maybe it would be better if you suggested to them that they include a new field which would list the operating systems that software is known to run on? (although they'll only list free software operating systems) Gronky18:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like to apply for featured portal status in the near or mid term future. Portal:Free_software has been around and regularly updated for over two years. It failed a featured portal nomination eight months ago, but I think all issues raised have been addressed. Gronky20:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
You should have more than one rotated content box. That shows a good size feild of articles to draw upon.Joe I20:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I can't think of another. There are not enough good biographies. News is one idea, but free software news is generally ephemeral, so it would be mostly out of date. Gronky15:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
External link references are against Manual of Style, especially since references shouldn't be on portals by default. As for image thumbnails and section headers, they simple don't look go with the background. Section headers may be formatted into bolded text. Michaelas10(Talk)15:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok. The external references are gone, the section headers are in bold instead of bold italics, and the image thumbnails are gone (actually all the images are gone, NicM has suggested a source of images we can use). Gronky12:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The "Operating systems" selections have a point of view.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Is it the mention of "GNU/Linux"? I'll change this to "systems based on Linux and GNU". Gronky14:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
"Top 5 most well-known" has a point of view as being a selection of what you believe to be most well-known operating systems. As similar to the "Legal and legislative" and "Free software licenses" sections, operating systems simple need to be linked through a topics section. Michaelas10(Talk)15:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I've removed the numbering from the lists and made the text clear that these are just 5 examples. And I've merged the "Legislative" and "Licences" boxes into a new "topics" box - which is quite good. Gronky12:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
"Categories" tab doesn't work.
My mistake. This is a work in progress. I'm adding the tabs now at the suggestion of the peer review from User:Searchme. Gronky14:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
"Contribute" is exactly the same as "Things you can do", and both sections aren't properly formatted.
I've renamed "things you can do" to "todo". I'm working on the formatting, it's also an issue caused by the transition to tabbed format which is giving me unforeseen problems. Gronky14:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
These are still the same. Please merge both of the "Contribute" section inside the "Things you can do" section. As for proper formatting, please see this as an example. Michaelas10(Talk)15:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I've kept the "requested articles / needy stubs" box and the "todo" box seperate, but I've renamed them to "general" and "specific". The "general" box is for lists of articles that need help, and the "specific" box is for articles where there is a suggestion plan for improving them, but they need someone with the right knowledge to work on the suggestion.
Introduction is way too short.
Hmm. I tried to keep it as short as possible because (a) the portal is not an article, and (b) This can be a controversial topic, so it's better to say as little as possible and go straight to introducing the wikipedia content.Gronky14:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
A portal isn't an article, please remove the "Legal and legislative" and "Free software licenses" sections.
Free software has legal and legislative issues, and licences are a core issue, so it would be incorrect to leave out those topics. Gronky14:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
"Wikipedia featured articles" should be renamed to "Featured content", otherwise is completely redundant to the "Selected article" section.
Ok, I'll do your suggestion, although your reasoning makes me wonder if there's a misunderstand. "Selected article" is not related to Wikipedia's "Featured article" process. Selected is just an arbitrary article from Wikipedia on a free software topic. Gronky14:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Selected articles should be of the highest quality, and that's usually means featured articles.
Unfortunately, there are only five free software articles that have featured status, so I've chosen topical or interesting articles as well as high quality ones. Gronky12:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Fair use images and logos aren't acceptable for portals.
You mean the logo at the top of the GNU, Tux, and BSD, and the photo of a free software badge? Well, I think the rules are wrong, but if the rules say they have to go, I'll remove them. Gronky14:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Lacks some of the most important portal sections, including selected picture, related portals, topics, and WikiProject sections.
Selected picture is impossible because fair use is not allowed, so logos and screenshots are not allowed. The only allowed thing would be a photo of a free software user/developer/advocate, so that means there'd not be enough pictures, and choosing people politicises the portal ("Stallman Vs. Linus" etc.), which I really want to avoid. Related portals are there. I'll add a topics section, and there are no active wikiprojects. Gronky14:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed that the Related portals box wasn't actually there. It must have gotten eaten in the flurry of edits. Fixed. Gronky14:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought I had done both of those things, but I'll redo them. Thanks for the review, and I'd appreciate some more info where requested above. Gronky14:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to try to use a tabbed layout, and put the contribution section on another tab rather than down the bottom (as per a peer-review comment). If anyone wants to help, here are the examples that I'm learning from of featured portals that use tabs:
Someone has pointed out that WP:FAIR prohibits using images under "fair use" terms on non-articles. Portals are non-articles, and logos are only usable because of "fair use", so that means every picture has been removed from the portal.
What can we do? Add pictures of mugshots of Stallman, Perens, Torvalds, etc.? I don't see that as being very useful since this isn't about them, it's about their software, the concepts they've used, and the social, technical, and legal issues that surround it. Worse than useless, it will probably politicise the development of this portal with Stallman vs. Linus discussions - who's picture is first, bigger, shown more times, etc.
Hmmm, artwork is a good idea. I'm sure I can find a conference photo too. Product packaging and stuffed toys probably has the same fair use problems as logos - I think this is a stupid rule and I argued against it for a while, but the discussion just went on and on and on. There's probably some more stuff here: http://www.gnu.org/graphics/graphics.html and when Sun's Java is finally freed (actually released), we can use their Java logo since it's under the revised BSD licence. Gronky17:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I've finally finished the tabs, and I can't find nicer tabs in any portal. These ones rock - and to top it off, I think they're even the best documented tabs. I learned from Portal:Science and Portal:United States Navy, but I added my own innovations such as varying thickness of borders. Gronky17:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Works pretty well, except I don't like the grey background with white text very much, and IMO the pale blue background doesn't go too well with the cyan on the tab backgrounds. Also, in Opera there is an artifact on the top left intersection between the "Main page" tab and the border: like this. NicM17:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
Ok, the colours can be changed easy enough. I'm just glad I got the tabs functioning - it took more than 100 edits. The artifacts you're seeing in Opera appear in firefox too, I don't know how to fix that. The problem is that the tab is a small rectangle which has a top, left, and right border, but no bottom border, and the page is a large rectangle with a bottom, left, and right border but no top border. So each rectangle has a side missing, and the intersection of the border-less side and the with-border side forms a 45 degree angle. And when one is on top of the other, they overlap on the outside, and don't quite meet on the inside, so the two 45 degree angles leave a right angle triangle shaped gap on the inside. This also happens with the "Contribute" tab when it is selected. Maybe there's a html way to fix to by preventing borders ending in 45 degree angles - I'll keep an eye out for it, but I'm not in a rush. Gronky20:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I fixed the tab glitch. It adds another parameter to the tab template to make the border-bottom have a passable argument for the pixel size. I have the headers pass "0" into this argument, which is pretty much the only way to get rid of this glitch. I think it looks better, but the code is a little weird I think. It would be nicer to just find out if anything is passed in argument 1-4, then use 0, otherwise use 3, but I don't think the wiki code is that robust to do something like that. At least it looks nicer now :) -BCable20:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Alert for possible censorship in Wikipedia against free software games
It seams to me that some of the editors in Wikipedia are trying to impose a kind of censorship on the free software games. Currently there is an open procedure to delete the article for Crossfire (computer game) and the majority seams to support the deletion even though Crosssfire is the biggest and the oldest free software MMORPG. They require sorces to prove the notability of this game and by sources they seam to mean an article in some magazine despite the fact that these magazines are reviewing exclusively games for Windows. --Zinoviev08:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
We can't just take you word for it that it is the "biggest and the oldest." Show us some evidence. NicM09:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC).
UFO: Alien Invasion was also nominated for deletion, though I deleted the nomination, explaining in its talk page that it was recently featured in Games For Windows magazine. So that's at least two free software games put in AfD recently. That's not to say that I agree that this warrants cries of censorship - only that it's not just one game. —Erik Harris12:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
It was listed using {{prod}} not AfD, and with a fair amount of justification since the article didn't justify notability. NicM13:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC).
Add "news" and fold in "selected article"
I think the portal is ready to go for featured status but there's just one thing that might snag it: the lack of a "News" box. Each review so far has said that the portal should have an additional "changing content" section, but I don't want to add a news box because it would increase the maintanence.
But I have a new idea: How about a joint "News and highlights" box. News could be added, and each week the selected article would be announced there. So the current level of maintanence would at least keep the news box "fresh", and also having news there would increase the flow of new content in the portal and make it more worth check back (more "sticky"). Better ideas? Obvious flaws? Gronky15:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to note that I have "corrected" the Floss_draft.svg image that was to supercede the currently used Floss_draft.png. There were some concerns for not using that SVG, but I hope the new one (Floss logos.svg) is OK. May I suggest using the new SVG for the {{Portal|Free software|}} tags? Does it make sense changing current portal tags to use the new SVG? I started doing it yesterday, but I'd like to comment here before going on, lest more harm than good is done. — isilanes (talk|contribs) 09:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Some other portals have a "Did you know..." box with trivia and interesting tidbits. I'd like to add one to Portal:Free_software, but don't have time right now. I'll do it when I find time, but if anyone else thinks it's a good idea and has time, feel free. --Gronky21:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
article request: Taskbar and/or Panel
Hi,
I recently browsed wikipedia for an article on Panels. But I only found Taskbar, pypanel, Kicker (KDE), gnome-panel and so on. What I wanted was a nice overview of panels in primarily *nix-desktop managers and the taskbar article is very, very windows-oriented.
So anyone who knows a lot about panels (what OS that used it first, and so on) please help improve the taskbar article or make a panel article.
Hi! I need to ask for some advice concerning a license issue. If you check the licensing of TrueCrypt you will find it has been uploaded as a screenshot from a copyrighted software. However, the whole official page of TC suggests it is free.
My problem is that I cannot decide if this is really a FREE license software as suggested here or it is a copyrighted software, however it looks to be free (you can distribute and modify etc. freely).
If it is free we could change the license for the uploaded screenshot. This would be also useful for other language Wikipedias with different legal regulations. Thank you for the advice. --RamirezHUN (talk) 11:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
FSF don't seem to have given an opinion on TrueCrypts' licences, but a search for truecrypt on lists.debian.org suggests that there is disagreement over whether the licence is free or not, and both those who think it is, and those who think it isn't free, agree that it's an unclear licence. So, unfortunately, having written their own licence, TrueCrypt have made it very difficult to answer the question of whether the software is free or not. --Gronky (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer. I think I'll change the licence of the screenshot to free. Probably, it is regarded as free by the majority. If somebody has any problem, she can contact me or change again. --RamirezHUN (talk) 09:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the {{under construction}} warning since the current changes don't seem to be disruptive enough to need a warning. The only glitches I've found are that the Categories and Contribute pages still have a border (inconsistent with the front page), that they have white blocks between the tabs which look like they shouldn't be there, and that the tab colour is different to the page/section colour (ie the clickable tab with "Main page" written on it is light blue but the displayed section, containing the 8 or so boxes, has a white background) - this leaves a borderless meeting of colours which looks unplanned.
More glitchs may also be revealed by changing the theme/skin in your user preferences. This reveals errors made by making visual assumptions based on the default (or your current) theme, but I haven't checked the portal in this way yet.
I've fixed the white-block-between-tabs problem (by removing the colour attribute), added the same border the main page has to the other two tabs, and made the background of the main tab page blue so that it matches the colour of the tab (like on the other two tab pages). I think everything's fixed now. --Gronky (talk) 13:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to offer my opinion. The project to excise all references to GNU/Linux is deeply POV and wrong. It should be reverted completely and totally as quickly as possible. Virtually all references to Linux should be references to GNU/Linux. I am certainly unaware of any community consensus which would support the draconian and absurd campaign that has been conducted against the correct naming convention.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
GNU/Linux is itself a POV. Nearly everyone calls it Linux; partisans of the Free Software Foundation insist that it be called GNU/Linux. Yet other parts of the software are just as significant; so why not call it GNU/Linux/X ? Or GNU/Linux/X/Mozilla? Most people call it Linux; Wikipedia should call it Linux also, consistently. RussNelson (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Articles are not written to conform to Jimbo's opinion, as you well know. I see this is being discussed currently at talk:Linux, with much the expected result. Could we keep further correspondence on this issue there for now? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk17:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Heh. You first leave a comment about "forum-shopping"[2] and then you replace that with a comment asking if the discussion can be had on Talk:Linux. I know, I know: where better do I suggest? C'mon, just appreciate the touch of irony. --Gronky (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
An Invitation from the Philippine Wikipedia Community
Hello folks,
The Philippine Wikipedia Community will be holding its 1st Meet-up in Cebu City (the fourth one in the Philippines) on June 23-24, 2008. This coincides with the first Philippine Open Source Summit, also to be held in Cebu. The Philippine Wikipedia Community is an Implementing Partner of the Open Source Summit. We invite you to join us in this event. If you are in the IT or IT-enabled services industry, this would be a great opportunity to meet people from the 4th best outsourcing city in the world. This is also a good excuse to visit our beautiful beaches :)
If you're interested in joining the Wikipedia meet-up, please join our discussion. You can register for the Open Source Summit here. If you would like some assistance with local accomodations, you may email User:Bentong Isles.
In that sense, IceCat and Iceweasel also are not completely free. They still contain a Mozilla logo and search engine plug-ins with logos. --AVRS (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Wrong:
Differences from the official Firefox release:
* Contains only free software
o Replacement of the proprietary artwork with free artwork
o Use of a plugin finder service that offers only free plugins"
A similar debate about what can be called Free or Open software is also going on at the article about Microsoft's Office Open XML (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (OOXML). It's a problematic article, hampered by edit waring and bias. There are too few people editing this article, and I think the article would benefit with more people being involved. Can I ask everyone to drop in there and take a look, to add some more eyes on this? Thank you. --Lester00:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
FSP image deleted
Just a heads up. The talk for it didn't look like it reached a consensus before someone deleted it (at least to me, but then again, someone put the result was delete on the top (although strictly by bold, I only found a modify and oppose under it, unless there's a longer discussion somewhere else I'm not seeing....could be, not really sure about discussions for deletion procedure)). Dunno how to un-delete images. ηoian‡orever ηew ‡rontiers03:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
.svg){kind=logo}
