I would be slightly less restrictive on this front (as I said in a
previous message in this thread). The criteria for Open Source should
simply be: (1) source code available somewhere, as well as binaries,
and (2) licensed to allow re-use and adaptation under certain
conditions. So even if, as in your suggestion below, the downloadable
is not in a repository in which you or I can contribute to it, if we
can download it, modify it, and recirculate our (de facto fork) of the
code, then we should be happy enough to list it. It may even be useful
to us.
Obviously the ideal is as you say, that the code is available for a
community to contribute to in its native development environment, and
we should encourage that. The ideal is also, as Paolo points out, that
the code is well documented, uses open standards and academically good
practice in its design, development and deployment.
Something that doesn't quite tick all of these boxes should be
criticized on those ground, for sure; perhaps that will even lead to
someone improving the situation. But let's not ostracize or be too
inclusive from the outset.
G
On 9 March 2012 19:43, Henry Francis Lynam <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Paolo,
>
> I agree that <Opensource> begs a definition of open source which admits for
> a wide range of criteria. Perhaps I was too hasty in suggesting <Opensource>
> as the tag, when I had in mind a narrower definition: what projects/tools
> use open source repositories for versioning their source code / resources?
> So, maybe <Opensourcerepo> is a better tag! And by open source repository, I
> mean one that is not used simply as a download link to the latest release
> (even though this does qualify as open source software), but one that allows
> the working source code to be branched and modifications pushed back to the
> working branch. I think the litmus test of an open source project should be
> a publicly accessible source code repository used as the working version
> control system (Git, Mercurial, Subversion etc) by the development team.
> Otherwise, there's no obvious way to actually contribute to the project.
>
> Henry.
>
>
> On 9 March 2012 17:09, Paolo Monella <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> > That sounds good to me. Note that many of the projects and tools
>> > already listed in the Wiki should be given this new tag
>>
>> I started tagging some DC Wiki articles with <Opensource>. Once you start
>> doing it, the question "What are the criteria for being an Opensource
>> project in the DH?" becomes tangible and urgent.
>>
>> First thoughts: an Open Source project not only shares the textual data
>> (XML) and implements openly documented, open API-based, Open Source
>> software, but also implements a simple, sustainable (i.e. reusable) data
>> architecture and shares (i. e. documents) this architecture.
>>
>> Good practices include (among many others) the Homer Multitext and Perseus
>> not only because they are "technically" Open Source, but because there is a
>> pile of scholarly articles (natural language, prosy texts) that might enable
>> DHs in 2020 or 2030 to take apart the toy, understand how it really works
>> and reuse it.
>>
>> As a project is not only data, but also data architecture, sharing in the
>> DH might also mean documenting.
>>
>> Best,
>> Paolo
>> --
>> Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir
>> belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de
>>
>
--
Dr Gabriel BODARD
(Research Associate in Digital Epigraphy)
Centre for Computing in the Humanities
King's College London
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL
Email: [log in to unmask]
Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
Fax: +44 (0)20 7848 2980
http://www.digitalclassicist.org/
http://www.currentepigraphy.org/
|
