Jump to content

Talk:List of free and open-source software packages

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

Votes for deletion decision: keep

[edit]

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of open-source software packages; result was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 22:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I interrupt right here but to list applications here does more harm than good for the wikipedia. Any application list is never complete, almost immediately outdated and in no case fair. So the decision to keep this list should not be based on a rather silly poll but on the implication it has on the correctness and relyability of the wikipedia. So this site has to be changed to contain sites which list applications and never again the applications themselves!

Hyphenation?

[edit]

As I have said on various occasions, anyone who doubts the utility of the marvelously efficient information-conveying power of the humble punctuation mark known as the hyphen, when it is used in its traditional way, should consider the difference in meaning between two newspaper headlines:

New age-discrimination rules proposed
New-age discrimination rules proposed

or:

The disease causing poor nutrition was identified.

(which means the disease that causes poor nutrition...) versus:

The disease-causing poor nutrition was identified.

(which means the disease that is caused by poor nutrition).

A web site asked Who are the best-connected physicists?, but omitted the hyphen, and I wondered for a second what exactly a "connected physicist" is, that being apparently prior to the question of which of those are the best.

Similarly:

text-only
Detroit-based organization
web-based
a state-of-the-art product
board-certified
thought-provoking
time-sensitive
case-sensitive
government-issued photo ID
light-gathering surface
award-winning

etc. Accordingly, I think this page should be about Open-Source software rather than Open Source software. The topic is hereby opened for public discussion before I undertake any editing.

I remember reading about this somewhere...

The OSI site says:

We think the Open Source Definition captures what the great majority of the software community originally meant, and still mean, by the term "Open Source". However, the term has become widely used and its meaning has lost some precision. The OSI Certified mark is OSI's way of certifying that the license under which the software is distributed conforms to the OSD; the generic term "Open Source" cannot provide that assurance, but we still encourage use of the term "Open Source" to mean conformance to the OSD.

and Eric Raymond wrote on http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html:

(A note about usage. In accordance with normal English practice, the term is "open source" standing alone, but "open-source" used as an adjective or in compounds; thus, "open-source software".)

I suggest we follow that guideline, but you have to be careful since it often looks like an adjective, but isn't: Open Source Definition, Open Source Initiative -- both lack a hyphen. It's clearer when you think of OSD as "Definition of (Open Source)" rather than the incorrect "Definition that is open-source". In other words, you use "open-source" when it is a property and "Open Source" when referring to the object.

Daniel Quinlan 22:32 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

In this case, I think it hardly makes any difference, and I would prefer omitting the hyphen in keeping with the more common usage. There is no ambiguity in open source software, since no parsing other than (open source) software makes sense. I like hyphens as much as the next guy, but only when they actually make sense. --Delirium 10:32, Oct 22, 2003 (UTC)

Indentation?

[edit]

Recently, I editted the page to indent subsections so that they would be more noticably subsections so as not to confuse people as to whether they were subsections or sections. This way, running through the list would be less confusing and easier on the eyes. However, it was changed by someone recently, and is back to being unindented. Could we please return it to being indented? It would make it much easier on the readers that way. -- LGagnon

Criteria for inclusion?

[edit]

I think this page is starting to get out of hand, we ought to come up with some sort of criteria for inclusion. --Imran 13:26, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's a pretty short list though, far from the largest in WP. It would be easy enough to break up by categories, but not worth thinking about until there are at least a thousand entries. Stan 14:19, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The main way to distinguish between open source and non open source sortware is the licence, often the OSI approved licences used to distinguish ( http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ ), as such I propose this list includes the software licence in brackets next to the entry. We could also consides a vers short discription and possibly the platforms it runs on. Only well known significant or mature projects should be mentioned, ie tail for windows does not meet these criteria, Mitch Kapors Chandler should be there as it is significant. If there is not some sort of elagibility criteria we may as well just start listing every project on sourceforge and freshmeat. Htaccess 07:51, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Commonly-added programs which don't meet the criteria

[edit]

I agree with the above criteria. Here are apps which don't meet the above criteria that have been removed multiple times:

-- Karnesky 00:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should this page even exist?

[edit]

why would you clutter up an encyclopedia with this? there are innumerables. just dump freshmeat.net into your encyclopedia.

Somebody had to agree...this is running out of proportions--Chealer 05:37, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
I agree that it is getting a bit cluttered & that many very minor projects are being added by anonymous edits (sometimes provably the devloper or a company that profits in some way from the F/OSS project). I think the list should be culled. Redlinks should be stubbed (if they are fit for inclusion in Wikipedia) or removed from the list so that this page isn't just a link farm. I will start to do this. -- Karnesky 00:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps what the list could use is a better description at the top of what it is. I think it's a very useful list, but it's not clear what it's actually a list of. Because it would be silly to include all projects, perhaps it should be clear that it is a list of mature, stable, significant projects. That is somewhat subjective too but it makes it clearer what the list is supposed to be. Additional suggested criteria could include downloads, adoption, Google popularity, being the major alternative to a commercial project, references online, historical significance, longevity, being a key player in its niche, being the foundation of important other software, etc. But somehow or another, the list as-is is still useful.--100.4.149.195 (talk) 11:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I find this very useful for me. It reduces time to find "good" software. If I do the same on e.g fsf.org or Github, I get a much longer list and it takes quite some time to find the relevant projects. Is there anywhere else something compareable? Zukunft (talk) 07:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add wiki software

[edit]
Should someone at least add MediaWiki and/or some other Wikis to the list? I'm not sure exactly where they should go... mike40033 06:14, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
and content management systems such as Plone, Joomla, Drupal, ... ? - K (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories need work

[edit]

The categories need to be worked on, the internet one is fairly meaningless at least half the software mentioned could be considered internet soptware in some way. There should probably also be a division between client and server. There is also a lack of server software eg plenty of FTP clients but no proFTP. Htaccess 07:51, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I really agree on this, it's very random. I can't find WordPress etc. - Anna

Include the licence?

[edit]

Would it be a good idea to identify what open source license each program has? -Anthropic42 13:04, 13 April 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free! - David Gerard 18:16, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

I think thats a very good idea (for someone with a lot of time on their hands) Htaccess 00:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the idea of including the license--this is just a list. It is already to unwieldy with off-site links & descriptions of some programs. Many other software lists are just that--lists containing nothing more than links to the relevant Wikipedia article. -- Karnesky 00:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page for open-source equivalents of closed source

[edit]

I would like to see a linked page about open-source equivalents of closed source software.

Addition of Syllable

[edit]

Can I add Syllable to the list? At version 0.5.5, it's not exactly totally mature yet, but it's useable and substantial. Graue 19:03, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I added Syllable for you. Would it be silly to add a few more BSDs? Perhaps that would be like adding several Linux distros. Tim Ivorson 14:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

QCad no longer open-source?

[edit]

Can someone clarify the remark about QCad that "newer versions are no longer open-source"? The website linked in the QCad article indicates that the source code is under the GPL. Graue 22:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the ribbonsoft developer FAQ is written: QCad for Unix and Mac OS X is GNU GPL license, for Win os it is proprietary software. --kernoz 07:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Seems to be a QT restriction. My understanding was the lastest version of QT for windows corrected this problem. Concavelenz (comment) (talk) 21:09, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
The source for the win32 version is available under the GPL & there have been Free binary releases for that platform. Concavelenz is most likely right about the QT restriction. Since there are F/OSS releases for win32, I've removed the caveat. -- Karnesky 00:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Combine Math and Mathmatics sections?

[edit]

Why are there two math sections?

One is for Applications & the other is for Education. Many from the education section should be removed (as the primary purpose isn't education). Some should be added to the Mathematics section. I'll work on this. Karnesky 18:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Any objections to removing site links for any software that has a Wikipedia page & adding site links for those that don't have Wikipedia pages? Karnesky 18:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good idea to include site links even if a page has a Wikipedia page, since a lot of the people reading the list will want to go directly to the software's homepage anyway Ninjakttty
I've been boldly removing site links for pages that have wiki pages, as 1)I found them ugly, 2)many of the site-links were dated & unmaintained, 3)most other software lists don't include site links. A lot of the other lists go so far as to avoid listing products which aren't in Wikipedia. Discussions for those other lists also point out Wikipedia lists aren't meant to be a link farm. If this list is "encyclopedic," I think it should direct people to the articles, NOT the homepages. I do feel a bit charitable--many of the programs which do have site links & no wiki articles should eventually have wiki articles. -- Karnesky 09:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Categories

[edit]

This is getting goofy. I'm converting all of this into categories. If you object, please tell me on my talk page and we can talk it over here. Where (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, what I am doing is putting all software into an appropriate use category and into Category:Free software. I am then going to put this up for deletion. Where (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was slowly doing the same thing. There is A LOT here. I have replaced some whole sections with mainarticle links to relevant categories (after populating them with any missing articles from this list & creating stubs where appropriate). I'm glad someone else sees this as a good idea. The sub-cats should ALL be under Category:Free software & many of the red links should be stubbed. It is a big task. --Karnesky 23:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was just adding them straight into the top level Category:Free software, but your approach is vastly superior. I am a convert :-) Where (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOOOOOOOO! this is a list of OPEN SOURCE software, NOT freeware. all the categories you are making are called "Free XXXXX Software" - this is definately not the same as opensource.
by all means, create these lists, but there must also be a "Open-Source XXXXX software" list for this to maintain it's integrity. what happens when people start putting other free, but not open-source software on these lists? then THIS list becomes something completely different to what it's supposed to be! please, stop doing this, or start making opensource categories too. --naught101 03:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Free software is about software that is "free as in freedom," not freeware (that goes in Category:Freeware. There is no Category:Open source software. There is a thread at Category talk:Free software#Free vs. open source concerning the choice of terminology. Please move further discussion on this topic to there--the "Free software" category predates the decision to start making the 'Free xxx' sub-categories. --Karnesky 05:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a list of open source software, this is a list of lists. I'm sure a gigantic list may seem out of hand, but worse so is having levels of long lists. No affiliation of mine, but Mozilla Firefox is not even mentioned in this list, and to that I say this article in the form of merely connecting to other pages which are only themselves lists, does not effectively convey to the user a solid list of open source software packages. Pdietz84 (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not only does a gigantic list 'seem' out of hand--we had a giant list and it 'was' out of hand. I think the goal of this is to help serve as a comprehensive index to notable free/open source software in various categories. It serves that objective, as it costs only an additional click to go to a main article or category index.
Let us know if you have some semi-objective criteria as to how we can include specific programs, but still keep a maintainable list. Otherwise, I think that it is better if the categories were finished. --Karnesky (talk) 07:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree, all of the Wikipedia software lists are goofy and fertile ground for link farming. Do the lists of software pages even serve a purpose? Categories accomplish the same thing and they do it automatically. Categories are definitely the way to go. -Requestion 16:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lists can serve to show which articles are missing from the enclyclopedia (so your recent purge of software that didn't have blue-linked articles might have actually been detrimental). That being said, as lists start to have articles associated with every notable entry, they probably should be replaced by cats. Lists CAN provide non-alphabetical organization & also short summaries. For software lists, this usually isn't worthwhile. I personally believe that most software lists should eventually be replaced by cats and/or by comparisons, but that this might take quite some time and effort. --Karnesky 17:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of freeware?

[edit]

I see that there isn't an article with a list of freeware (not open-source, but still free). I only see a link to a list at Wikibooks (which is fairly good). But if there is a list of open source software packages here at Wikipedia, shouldn't there be a list of freeware applications (not just games) here as well, not just at Wikibooks? --FlyingPenguins 22:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still want to transform this particular list into categories. I think that starting to make subcategories for freeware (rather than making a list) would be the best thing to do. In any case, there's little reason to bring it up here--if you want there to be a list of freeware, start one. --Karnesky 23:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

[edit]

I added the cleanup tag, as linking in headings is a "negative" in the MOS!

I'll get round to it eventually, unless someone else does first...

EvocativeIntrigue 23:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there really are better things to cleanup first. The MOS specifically states "Avoid links within headings. Instead repeat the word or phrase in the first sentence and wikify there." It doesn't prohibit heading links (of course) & the suggestion for improvement (sentences after the heading which do contain a link) wouldn't really improve this list. --Karnesky 03:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free vs. OSS

[edit]

I see that this list has alot of links to 'Free X sofware'. Should those be listed if we're specifically discussing OSS?

I would suggest that, for the general public, the difference between free and OSS isn't great. Additionally, it seems like our lists are heavily mixed. May I suggest we make instead of this page a List of free software (which already redirects here) and then tag all the OSS packages. Oberiko 15:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am opposed to having a separate list of free software, but would not be opposed to renaming the current list (I'm not for renaming this--only neutral). The naming of the free software cats has been discussed at length on Category_talk:Free_software#Free_vs._open_source. It is appropriate that we link to those from this list. --Karnesky 15:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At Category:Free software it was decided to adopt "Free software" as a catch-all and mention "Open-Source" in the opening. I suggest we do the same here (especially since we link to alot of Free Software lists) and move this page to List of free software packages. Oberiko 18:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2006

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. However, if free in this context is not the same as open source, then I do not think that list of free software packages should redirect to list of open source software packages. -- Kjkolb 05:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of open source software packages → List of free software packages – This page includes and points to many non-OS free packages already, plus it will standardize with them Oberiko 11:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion

[edit]

Add any additional comments

Which non-OS free packages are listed here? --Karnesky 13:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Off hand, look at all the the Main article links we have. Almost all of them point to either categories or lists of Free software. We either have to filter through those lists and put the OS packages on this page or change this to "Free". Oberiko 14:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made or sponsored the creation of many of the sub-categories of Free software & chose to do this because of the name of Category:Free software. However, some have since been renamed or already had "open source" names:
As you know, there has been renaming discussion at Category talk:Free software. The only thing which seems to have universal agreement is that the categories mention both free and open source in the intro. Until and unless WP is able to agree on how to name all of the other "open source" articles, I don't see the point of renaming this single article. --Karnesky 16:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Spam tag

[edit]

I do still spend some time cleaning up this list & have noticed others spend time to. Through this continual cleanup, we've kicked out any pages which have too many ads or which are new/non-notable from the "External links" section. Because of this maintenance, I'd appreciate either removing the cleanup template (which seems to have been applied to MANY pages recently). If anyone objects to removing it now, I'd encourage them to cleanup the list as they see fit & then removing it. --Karnesky 00:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Karnesky. I think you are doing a great job keeping this list link spam free. I added the spam tag to spotlight the directories section at the bottom, it seemed to be getting a bit crufty to me. Remove the spam tag whenever you feel that section is acceptable to you. I've been running around in a spring cleaning mode of all the software lists. Sorry if I stepped on any toes. (Requestion 01:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Would anyone mind if I removed all entries in the list that don't have their own Wikipedia article? Seems like a pretty good criteria (to me) for removing entries. All those red links just look bad. --Lijnema 14:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I object. Many are notable and should be stubbed. --Karnesky 23:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse creating the stub (and asserting notability) or removing the entry. Without some sort of notability criteria (like an article), lists like this become a spam magnet. Wikipedia list articles typically help one find related articles and need not be cluttered with redlinks. The externally linked entries should go away too. ✤ JonHarder talk 04:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that we shouldn't have to worry about notability when maintaining this list. A simple check to see if a package has its own article should be plenty. If a package is notable enough but doesn't have an article is can always be added to the list once someone has gotten around to creating an article about it. --Lijnema 13:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy that states lists should be free of redlinks & the use of redlinks to request articles is encouraged. Indeed, it is one of the reasons this list hasn't been completely deprecated with categories yet. I think this list has relatively few redlinks when compared with other lists of software & considering the large scope. These may be removed when an article is deleted or if they're accompanied by external link spam or if they are to non-notable software. This last point is a matter of judgment, but I'd prefer to set some ad hoc criteria such as "red links are removed after one year or more of being up without an article" is better to preserve article requests. --Karnesky 14:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Openbravo

[edit]

I submit to your decision the inclusion of Openbravo in the finance category of this list. Full disclosure for the purpose of WP:NPOV: I am an Openbravo employee. Jmitja (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Syced (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no concensus after 34 days Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bad news :( — Neustradamus (✉) 21:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of free and open source software packages → List of free and open-source software packages — Multimove combined from 19 20 different talk pages; relisted for further input. Jafeluv (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

like Open-source software — Neustradamus (✉) 19:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oppose (it is not a common usage) Tedickey (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's the correct spelling though. Ucucha 13:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No - the correct spelling would be that used by the originators of the term. If you can provide a source for that, it's worth discussing. Otherwise, you have only wikipedia-style guidelines interfering with sources Tedickey (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd — Neustradamus (✉) 22:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It uses both; the most common appears to be without the hyphen. Tedickey (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not mix Open Source and open-source, it is not same (name and adjective) — Neustradamus (✉) 04:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to mix them, then you need a different reliable source which pre-empts the one you chose. Tedickey (talk) 10:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose "Open-source" (with a hyphen) is not common usage. "Open source" (with a space) is. Even quickly checking the Wikipedia: [1] gives some 10,400 articles, while [2] only has 2,700 results. Multiply this up by the number of times the phrase appears (on average) in each article and the hyphenated version is in a clear minority.
Further, of those articles which use "open-source", a lot of them actually use "open source" in their text! Nuwewsco (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's because, in the text, open source is usually used as a noun in which case it would not be correct to use a hyphen. However, the titles under consideration here use it as an adjective which calls for a hyphen (see WP:HYPHEN or an English writing or grammar text). — AjaxSmack 05:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments copied from Talk:Free and open source software
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
oppose (it's not a common usage) Tedickey (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
official website: http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd — Neustradamus (✉) 22:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It uses both; the most common appears to be without the hyphen. Tedickey (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
oppose Most common usage of the term is not hyphenated. In the page linked above, "open-source" is used twice while "open source" is used six times. This same discussion about hyphenating open source has come up before on one or more pages, and the consensus was to omit the hyphen. --Hamitr (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not mix Open Source and open-source, it is not same (name and adjective) — Neustradamus (✉) 04:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to mix them, then you need a different reliable source which pre-empts the one you chose. Tedickey (talk) 10:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
oppose Most common usage of the term is not hyphenated. In the page linked above, "open-source" is used twice while "open source" is used six times. This same discussion about hyphenating open source has come up before on one or more pages, and the consensus was to omit the hyphen. --Hamitr (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to restate it a little more simply. Sometimes "open source" is used as a noun and sometimes as an adjective. As a noun, it should not have a hyphen and as an adjective it should have a hyphen. That's just basic English writing convention and it's why the linked source above uses both forms. The source uses a hyphen only when it's used as an adjective. The titles here at Wikipedia are all adjectives and so should use the hyphen. — AjaxSmack 05:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do not mix name and adjective — Neustradamus (✉) 21:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Grammatically necessary when "open-source" precedes and qualifies a noun ("List of free and open source software packages" is a glaring example of why). Regarding the claims that this is not the standard spelling: just because programmers can't write proper English doesn't mean we shouldn't. 86.138.42.82 (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Summary

[edit]

After more than 20 days of discussion there appears to be two clear positions here. The support for the move appears to be relying on an English grammatical rule stating that the adjectival form of "open-source" should be hyphenated. This stance is supported by the manual of style in WP:HYPHEN, and it appears to be the manner which it is used in literature about the subject when they use the adjectival form. Opposition is relying on the guidelines at use common name, saying that the term is most commonly not hyphenated. The opposition also points out that this conversation has occurred in that past, and we are not using the hyphenated form.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 18:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nice summary. I would only add that WP:UCN (Use common names) does not mention suspending grammar guidelines for common names (as opposed to proper names). Wikipedia uses formulations United States ten-dollar bill and long-term memory even if these aren't the most common ones. Proper names of course are different (e.g., Three Dollar Bill) but, as can be seen at www.opensource.org, the Open Source Initiative itself considers the phrase to be a common noun and uses the hyphen when the phrase is used as an adjective.[3][4]. All of those arguing against the moves are ignoring or seem to be unaware of the difference between noun and adjective usage in English. — AjaxSmack 16:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In all fairness, the hyphenation rules are fairly pedantic, probably due primarily to their obscurity. I think that most (including myself, so be aware of my self admitted bias here) native English speakers/writers would prefer to drop the vast majority of hyphenation these days just out of simplicity, except possibly in those rare cases where not using a hyphen actually creates confusion (which is pretty subjective, but that's what we deal with in English fairly consistently...).
    — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 19:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that this is one of those that tends to fall by the wayside and not using the hyphen is common but the typographical rule is still part of major English grammar texts (even in more liberal ones where other conventions such as the split infinitive and preposition stranding have been thrown out). With Wikipedia's redirect capability, there is really no reason not to use correct typography in this case. — AjaxSmack 00:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't personally have any strong feelings on the matter, although I do tend to agree with the reasoning for the move. The only thing that I would point out is that the current list includes a couple of names which it probably shouldn't, for example "Open source software development", and "Open source software security", should remain unhyphenated since "Open source" is a noun form there (right?).
    — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 01:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hyphenating a noun compound in a multicompound happens sometimes to disambiguate. "Open source software development" without a hyphen may mean "Open-source software development" or "'source software development' which is open". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, except "source software" doesn't mean anything; I doubt anyone would think it meant that. "Open source" followed by "software" would only be interpreted as that, because "open source" is a real term and "source software" isn't (as far as I know). Grammar rules only have value when they serve a practical purpose, and this grammar rule, practically speaking, does not resolve any confusion or ambiguity here... so I would throw that out as a convincing reason for the move. We would then be left with the common usage of the unhyphenated adjective (common name) vs. Open Source Initiative's use of the hyphenated adjective (official name). Common name vs. official name is always a difficult choice, especially when our naming conventions contradict each other, but I think I'd support the official form in this case, since the official form also gets some use (OpenOffice, Ubuntu), and I don't think anyone would be confused by the hyphen. -kotra (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Restructure

[edit]

List of free software web applications has just been restructured to remove all non-notable apps and standardise the format. Maybe something similar could be done here? Stuartyeates (talk) 06:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Below is my proposed new structure:

Package Field Built-on Platform License Latest Version Latest Release Date Note
GCC Compiler C cross-platform GPL 4.6.1 June 27, 2011 (2011-06-27) Includes C, C++, Objective-C, Ada, Java, Pascal and Fortran compilers
Non-notable apps (as judged by non-existent WP articles) are periodically removed. This list is already fairly unwieldy & there are efforts to link to sub-lists, categories, or software comparisons as appropriate. I don't know if the tabular format is useful here. --Karnesky (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Who removed my addition redarding IRC servers??? That was good information 70.26.22.8 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There might be a topic where it is "good information", but it is off-topic here. TEDickey (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attention other editors: I have discovered this tedhickey person is a vandal, and has been quitely removing stuff from this page. I don't know for how long as I did not check, but he has remove for example http://bots.sourceforge.net/en/index.shtml from the communication section. This is a perfectly good addition, like mine. This person should be banned immediately and the damage corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.247.141 (talk) 11:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. TEDickey (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud System

[edit]

Where should we include cloud systems such as ownCloud, seafil etc? Wakeup12 (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like to add Geosciences to the Sciences section

[edit]

I was hoping to add a category for Geoscience in the Science section. The Computational Infrastructure for Geodynamics (CIG) has a whole bunch of open source software packages in geosciences that help with modelling, etc of seismology, tectonics, volcanoes, sea-floor spreading.....I am also thinking of creating articles for the software, but thought I should start here first and ask if I can create a section where they can live. ScienceJen — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceJen (talk • contribs) 21:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-"notable" software topics should have a sourced article first (to avoid bloating the list and possible promotional link additions), then they could be added here (see also WP:WTAF). You'll find the basic definition of "notable" in Wikipedia's sense of the term at WP:GNG. Please also note that Wikipedia is not supposed to popularize open source applications or to promote any other external cause, but to present these topics in an uninvolved, neutral manner - based on independent reliable sources. GermanJoe (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote text moved to Talk page

[edit]

"This article need a review due incorrect licensing informations and missing informations that the listed program is only a demo". This may have been intended to supplement the {{misleading}} tag. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Vitrite (software)" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Vitrite (software). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 27#Vitrite (software) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turn the list into a table

[edit]

As many others have said before this list is quite a mess and does not provide enough information to be useful when 'Category' article listings are more complete. I suggest turning it into a table with each row contatining the name of the software along with its license, brief description clearly stating its purpose and discerning features, developer and whether it's a fork or not. Such table could act as a quick reference of free software to anyone interested in a particular category without the need to open each article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janmaslo (talk • contribs) 15:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS)

[edit]

Fyi. Might be valuable to relate or point out that it exists, https://joss.theoj.org/ KR 17387349L8764 (talk) 09:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_free_and_open-source_software_packages&oldid=1208239083"