This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
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.
Trevj (talk·contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.
This 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
