Talk:Open Source Toolset
Do you include such stuff as CSS, xhtml, php, etc? Bawolff 04:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Except for PHP none of those are really pieces of software... Although the last one is why I came to the talk page: Should we setup a seperate page for free software that Wikimedia is using on the backend? --Gmaxwell 04:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Tag on commons?
This makes me wonder if we should have categories on commons for media processed by each tool, so people can find examples (and possibly contact their creators) more easily. Rl 08:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's being done at least for Inkscape; doing it for others sounds like a good idea.--Eloquence 08:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Project management software
Hi, one set of tools that appears missing, perhaps on purpose, is wikitext editors. w:Wikipedia:Text editor support mentions most of the usable ones, and looks like a good basis for a page on meta: as it is not English specific and many of these projects are not encyclopaedic; would it be appropriate to transwiki it here? There are a few more on Dedicated Wikipedia editor that could be be incorporated for completeness.
Emacs with wikipedia-mode is pretty good.. though I wish it had a button to hide inline citations. ;) --Gmaxwell 06:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
What do you suggest for video editing? Thanks, Yann 15:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- VirtualDub? --Flominator 16:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- or for those who also don't want to use a proprietary OS there is Avidemux
- or if you need something bigger maybe Cinelerra suits your needs...--188.8.131.52 11:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Mediawiki Foundation open source policy/practise
Recently on WikiEN-l there was a mention that the foundation has a policy on using Open Source, but perhaps it wasn't official. I went looking and wasnt able to find any statement. Is there a statement, or failing that a list of software used on the Mediawiki foundation servers? John Vandenberg 02:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, the MediaWiki Foundation doesn't exist (yet!).
- Best practices in evaluating new software and Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles may be helpful. --MZMcBride (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
"Aneesoft Video" is NOT free/open source
Is "Aneesoft Video" really open source / free? There is no sign on its website that it's free, both in terms of open source and charge. Probably it used to be free. Can anyone verify this and correct the list if necessary? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) 1 August 2010.
- Its "free trial" is not free software, I verify its EULA, it is proprietary software. I guess other paid software of this company is proprietary at all because it sells "Single-User License", "Personal License", "Commercial License", "School License", "Volume License", "Academic License". But every recipient of free software has "Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program for any purpose." and "Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.". It is advertisement. It was added by User:Kensa at 03:24, 25 March 2010.
- Sorry for my poor English. --LungZeno 19:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Can we merge there? Nemo 10:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)