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.
> That sounds good to me. Note that many of the projects and toolsI 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.
> already listed in the Wiki should be given this new tag
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.
Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir
belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de