Talk:RISC OS Open
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Trevj in topic Notability of directors
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the RISC OS Open article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
Shared source initiative (SSI)
editThis edit makes sense. However, when things have progressed from the talk there, do you agree it may then be appropriate to reinstate the wikilink? --trevj (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Right, it looks as though the SS article is unlikely to be changed. What about the relevance of the c.s.a. posting linked to from this Drobe "news quickie"? Maybe the ROOL article could state that it's open source (with a wikilink?) but with restrictions on use. It could also explain use of the "shared source" terminology, by adding a couple of refs (including that c.s.a. posting). --trevj (talk) 10:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- The news posting you link too says "we've been very careful on the ROOL site to stick to the OSI definition of "Open Source" and not use it when referring to the bulk of the RISC OS sources", as such we shouldn't either.--Flibble (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I'm finding the statements rather confusing. Probably easiest for me to forget trying to add further clarification for the moment. And there are plenty other things to be getting on with, anyway! If a licensing section is added in the future, all the background can be summarised there. --trevj (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Basically Steve is saying "we would rather use the term Open Source to describe it, but don't cos we don't match the OSI definition, so we've called it 'Shared Source' instead, which is a term I don't particularly like". I think that's a fairly accurate summation.--Flibble (talk) 11:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I'm finding the statements rather confusing. Probably easiest for me to forget trying to add further clarification for the moment. And there are plenty other things to be getting on with, anyway! If a licensing section is added in the future, all the background can be summarised there. --trevj (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- The news posting you link too says "we've been very careful on the ROOL site to stick to the OSI definition of "Open Source" and not use it when referring to the bulk of the RISC OS sources", as such we shouldn't either.--Flibble (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Notability of directors
editThis edit has introduced some red links. It's worth noting what happened to the article on Paul Middleton! -- Trevj (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)