Jump to content

Portal talk:Free and open-source software

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lotrgamemast (talk | contribs) at 22:33, 23 October 2006 (WikiProject Open Source). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Portalnomfailed

Use the "purge" button

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.

Record of selected articles

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.

Here is as good a place as any to keep a list of articles that have been put in the "Selected articles" box. I suggest, as a guideline only, that selected articles should stay for 7 days before being changed.

Ideas for future articles to be picked are: Red Hat, PaX, GNU Coding Standards, openMosix, GNU Radio, and Ubuntu.

Where to take this

For some inspiration, look at the French one: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portail:Logiciels_libres

Or the German one: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Freie_Software

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.

Back in the morning. Gronky 05:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.)
As a side note, it's actually kind of surprising that there isn't a general computing themed wikiportal for this protal to branch off of. There's Portal:Technology, Portal:Information technology, Portal:Artificial intelligence, Portal:Computer and video games - all of which are related to some degree. (Portal:Information technology being the closest to a general computing portal.)
Also, I'm thinking for the next featured article, how about Damn Small Linux. I was just browsing Wikipedia and found it. Seems interesting. -Hyad 06:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. Gronky 00:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where should this be linked from?

I know that this portal is not yet ready, but when it is, what then?

Do we add a link to it from every page about a free software project? Wikipedia:Portal isn't clear on this. Gronky 20:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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? Gronky 22:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been adding links on everything about free software and free sofrware itself. //Ae:æ 23:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Gronky 23:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 Cassowary 23:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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? Gronky 15:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OpenBSD

It's a featured article now, PaX is one too, they may be good for your featured articles. Janizary 21:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Gronky 22:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Janizary 06:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Gronky 04:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Janizary 08:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Nate 01:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Janizary 01:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Gronky 23:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Nate 00:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Janizary 05:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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? Gronky 12:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Janizary 18:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logo on the portal?

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? Gronky 21:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. NicM 08:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
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. Janizary 17:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but I recommend the logo be removed from the intro box if it starts to cause friction in the future. Gronky 04:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 Tweedale 08:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about -bdude Talk 04:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've put a png version of that gif at Commons:Image:Opensource.png MeekMark 05:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. ~LinuxeristFile:Tux-linux logo.svg A/C/E/L/P/S/T/Z 13:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Gronky 12:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. ~LinuxeristFile:Tux-linux logo.svg A/C/E/L/P/S/T/Z 14:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Gronky 15:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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(...)"

This would leave me to believe the image is a copyright violation. ~LinuxeristFile:Tux-linux logo.svg A/C/E/P/S/T/Z 03:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. NicM 07:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Reverted on grounds of unloved appearance. Gronky 22:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. NicM 07:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I think including organisations is a bad idea, particularly one which has done so little. Gronky 12:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. ~Linuxerist A/C/E/P/S/T/Z 13:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I now have my first draft at Image:Floss draft.png. I'm going to put it on for now, unless I here some objections. ~Linuxerist A/C/E/P/S/T/Z 13:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.) Gronky 14:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. NicM 15:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
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. ~Linuxerist A/C/E/P/S/T/Z 17:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I remade the graphic, let me know what you all think! :) ~Linuxerist A/C/E/P/S/T/Z 17:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great now, excellent work. NicM 09:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Great, glad you like it! LINUXERIST@ 01:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject free software

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. Janizary 18:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will this still be coming about? It seems to have been a while now. :\ ~Linuxerist A/C/E/P/S/T/Z 03:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if that infrastructure is necessary yet. For now, there a collaboration section on the portal which provides some of the same benefits. Gronky 14:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In sisterprojects

not sure if you care about this, but if you do, free software portal in wikinews is Wikinews:Category:FLOSS. Bawolff 03:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. ~LinuxeristFile:Tux-linux logo.svg A/C/E/L/P/S/T/Z 14:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A new addition to the layout allows for this. Thanks for the link! ~Linuxerist A/C/E/P/S/T/Z 03:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

open source

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. --Easyas12c 17:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Easyas12c 17:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Karnesky 17:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Gronky 17:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. NicM 18:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
"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"! Gronky 21:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. 65.94.60.61 00:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Gronky 09:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needy stubs

I've made some changes to Nmap. Ojw 23:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, that's just what we need! :) ~Linuxerist A/C/E/P/S/T/Z 03:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know how to fix the thumbnails?

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? Gronky 20:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manually, with HTML. 65.94.99.88 11:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Restrictions in MediaWiki are simply not going to allow it. //Ae:æ 23:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories --> Types of Software

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?

That shouldn't be there, I'll remove it. There is a similar category for free software: Category:Free learning support software Gronky 14:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DRM

To quote,

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. Gronky 19:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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? Pauric 19:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

--Hweimer 11:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution section

A portal is not "a place to coordinate with others". That is the function of WikiProjects. This section should be hived off to a Wikipedia:WikiProject Free software, and a smaller lead-on to that project's activities retained (á la Portal:Australia).--cj | talk 05:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Gronky 08:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 | talk 09:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Gronky 10:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Programming languages?

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? JeffreyMeunier 13:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the categories box, there's Category:Free compilers and interpreters, and also Category:Free development toolkits and libraries. If you have an idea for this could be easier to find, let us know (or make the change). Gronky 10:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Open Source

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!--Lotrgamemast 22:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal_talk:Free_and_open-source_software&oldid=83299594"