Talk:List of formerly proprietary software

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of formerly proprietary software article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Expansion

For anyone interested in expanding this article, check out this Google search of slashdot.org for "source code released". Note, however, that just because the source code is available doesn't necessarily mean the software is covered by a free or open source license. Also, Slashdot has an unfortunate habit of printing erroneous stories, so be sure to check carefully. —Psychonaut 15:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] can turbo case come into this category

does turbocash come into this category. 59.176.10.186 02:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Java

Please don't put Java in yet, because only small parts of the implementation have actually been released so far. Superm401 - Talk 03:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3676246 Sun Microsystems today will announce it's released a fully buildable Java Development Kit (JDK) for Java Platform Standard Edition (Java SE) under the GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2. Sun is planning a formal announcement today at its JavaOne conference in San Francisco. Paucabot 03:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
It is time yet? (I haven't been following Sun's news, but I thought they'd now released most of it) I'm obviously not clued in enough to write that entry myself though. Gronky 19:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] doom2

is doom2 libeated at the same time of doom1? http://liberatedgames.org/gamelisting.php?letter=D

[edit] POV title

The title of this article is POV. Sadly I can't think of anything suitable and concise. Suggestions? NicM 11:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Indeed. Any suggestions for a slightly more neutral title? I can't think of one which is of an appropriate length. Chris Cunningham 12:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 11#Category:Liberated software for a suggestion. Chris Cunningham 13:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CLARAty - no article yet

Here's a new release: CLARAty, but there's no corresponding Wikipedia article yet. Gronky 09:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On Portal:Free software, this list is currently the selected article

Just to let you know. The purpose of selecting an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors. It will remain on the portal for a week or so. The previous selected article was Iceweasel. Gronky 21:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The selected article has moved on and is now MoinMoin - the wiki engine. Gronky 20:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FreeSpace 2

This came out in 1999 and had it's source code released in 2002. - 79.73.206.252 20:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Liberated software

I've made Category:Liberated software. The category should benefit this list because it provides a place where you might find packages that this list should include. --Gronky 20:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

For anyone interested either way, this category has been proposed for deletion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_11#Category:Liberated_software
--Gronky 14:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The result is that the category was renamed to Category:Formerly proprietary software. --Gronky 11:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change list to article?

I've been thinking. Maybe this would be better as an article. Things like Java, Mozilla, and OpenOffice.org really deserve a section each with two paragraphs. Things like the Quake engine also need more of an explanation - what was liberated, what wasn't, what has been done with the liberated part. And then smaller things could be discussed together as a general discussion of liberated software. I think this would be more informative and interesting. Thoughts? --Gronky 11:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:SYN at its finest. Definitely not a good idea. Chris Cunningham 11:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
In what you linked to, do you see the bit that says "That much is fine."? That's what I'm suggesting we do.
We currently have a list with a few big/important packages mixed in with a load of others. The big ones are being under-documented because there is only a small box for such comments. I'm just suggesting we remove the frame of the table, convert it to paragraph style where there will be enough room to give more, referenced, information on the big/important packages. --Gronky 12:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
...With the goal being an essay on relicensed software, which tries to draw a theme from a bunch of sources which don't have one. I'm far more inclined to suggest deleting the article now that there's a category, seeing as it's an arbitrary grouping of not-particularly-related software packages. The article on free software itself could describe the process of "liberation". Chris Cunningham 12:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know where your getting these ideas from. The goal being an article on software which was non-free and was later released as free software, plus the (referenced) reasons given and the (referenced) reactions and the (referenced) projects that spawned from these projects. The freeing of software such as Netscape's and StarOffice were big, surprising events in the software world and both had large impacts on market share distribution. This is a notable topic with plenty of referenceable sources. --Gronky 13:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It's notable individually. It is not sufficiently well-sourced and notable as a phenomenon to really justify an article to itself. Chris Cunningham 13:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linux (kernel)

The kernel Linux wasn't originally covered by the GPL. "When he released [0.12], Torvalds adopted the GNU General Public License (GPL) over his previous self-drafted license, which did not permit commercial redistribution." (from Linux kernel) See http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/Historic/old-versions/RELNOTES-0.12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogburnd02 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] interbase/firebird

what about the liberation of InterBase that have given Firebird (database server)? GNUtoo(my point of views(for npov), howto customise a signature) | talk 20:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bitstream

Can anyone provide a source showing Bitstream used to be proprietary? Superm401 - Talk 13:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Star Control 2

Correct me if I'm wrong the but Ur Quan Masters is Star Control 2 re-released open source isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.173.174.143 (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)