Talk:List of free and open-source software packages

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Criteria for inclusion? 

message: I agree with the above criteria.  Here are apps which don't meet the above criteria that have been removed multiple times:
*Crimson Editor
*foobar2000
*GnuPlot
*Scilab
*µTorrent
*TrueCrypt
-- Karnesky 00:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commonly-added programs which don't meet the criteria 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Should this page even exist? 

message: :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)
replies: text: and content management systems such as Plone, Joomla, Drupal, ... ?  - K (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add wiki software 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Categories need work 

message: Would it be a good idea to identify what open source license each program has? -Anthropic42 13:04, 13 April 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Include the licence? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Addition of Syllable 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Combine Math and Mathmatics sections? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  List of freeware? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Free vs. OSS

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support Oberiko 11:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  I object.  Many are notable and should be stubbed. --Karnesky 23:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Spam tag 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done Syced (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Openbravo 

message: no concensus after 34 days Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Bad news :( — Neustradamus (✉) 21:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: oppose (it is not a common usage) Tedickey (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it's the correct spelling though. Ucucha 13:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd — Neustradamus (✉) 22:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It uses both; the most common appears to be without the hyphen. Tedickey (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do not mix Open Source and open-source, it is not same (name and adjective) — Neustradamus (✉) 04:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: oppose (it's not a common usage) Tedickey (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  official website: http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd — Neustradamus (✉) 22:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It uses both; the most common appears to be without the hyphen. Tedickey (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  Do not mix Open Source and open-source, it is not same (name and adjective) — Neustradamus (✉) 04:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Comment Do not mix name and adjective — Neustradamus (✉) 21:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Summary 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Restructure 

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Off-topic external links

message: Where should we include cloud systems such as ownCloud, seafil etc? Wakeup12 (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cloud System 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Like to add Geosciences to the Sciences section 

message: "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  tag. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatnote text moved to Talk page 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Vitrite (software)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Turn the list into a table 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS)