Hot answers tagged

23

My stance is that no, we should not. We are a community of experts on the subject of open source projects, specifically, we know how to create, maintain, and use open source projects. We do not have expertise in all the various open source projects out there, and there is a site specifically made for that over on Software Recommendations.


21

No way! As was previously discussed on the Area51 proposal, we should be looking to accept questions about the application of open source principles and models, whether or not they involve software. On Engineering Stack Exchange, we've fielded a question about open source aircraft components. There are "open source" designs for creating things with 3D ...


15

Always a good way to form a community is leading by example. So if you want the community include more non-licensing question you should ask some good questions yourself. Another way might be encouraging questions about specific topics. I've seen on Worldbuilding that there was a week about asking map-related questions (and it seems that's an regular event)....


13

I think broader is better. If we are narrow in scope we have problems getting quality questions later. However, if there is already a site dedicated to specific aspects of Open Source and a question is more on topic there, we should migrate such questions. Open Data is one such site. It already has the user base and traffic to handle such questions. I ...


13

Yes. They lend variety to the things we talk about - we have a lot of licensing questions so far - and they're directly related to open source.


13

FAQs are generally considered on-topic on every site,* and I see no reason why they shouldn't be here. That doesn't mean they're good questions, but the commonness of a question or the lack of research shown doesn't impact their on-topicness. If you keep at least one version of each common question around then they also serve as good duplicate targets, and ...


13

Do we want to allow specific questions? Not just 'yes', but… helllll yes! See my answer on Is 'too specialized' a reason to close vote? As I replied to the comment earlier: You might be confusing this with the "too localized" issue (now gone). But it is actually quite the opposite — SE thrives on asking very specific questions. Issues requiring ...


13

Let me take a second to introduce myself to those that don't know me. I'm Tim Post, the Director of Stack Overflow Communities here at Stack Exchange. I'm an associate member of the FSF, and a former contributing member to SPI. Most of my professional career as a programmer was built on free & open source software. I haven't been as active as I planned ...


12

Yes, as long as it is also about open source development. We can't have people coming along and asking us about developing their proprietary software merely because we allow collaborative development questions. There has to be some aspect of open source in there too. Essentially, all this means is we just don't close collaborative development questions ...


12

The definition phase on Area 51 is usually ok to outline the scope of the site. But it is bad at producing good questions. On Area 51, you can only type a title, not a whole question. It's tempting to take Area 51 question titles and transform them into questions on the site during the early beta, but that very often produces underspecified questions. ...


12

A note before I start: I don't actually know where I personally stand on this, but this is certainly one viewpoint. Not My Opinion tm. No. It really doesn't fit the format. Stack Exchange sites are built for Q&A. They're not built for being forums, bulletin boards, mailing lists, et cetera. Having announcements like these clashes horribly. It's very ...


11

I do think they are on topic. Explaining exactly how NC licenses work, how they differ to other licenses, and what their OSI relationship is seem excellent questions to me


11

Yes, they should be. Reasoning behind certain decisions in the past can help people build their knowledge on certain topics, and if it is related to open source and licensing, then I don't see a problem with it.


11

Open source (etc.) is a about copyright. It's about law. To some extent, we have to take law questions, or we can't really discuss FLOSS. But we also, I think, do not want to take law questions that aren't really specific to open source. General law questions should be directed to Law Beta. I think we also shouldn't take questions that ask for legal advice ...


11

Recommendation is not the problem. If a question is specific and detailed and can be answered with facts rather than pure opinion then the recommendation will be meaningful and relevant to users of this site. Questions which are broad or primarily opinion based should be closed, but not because they request a recommendation. For example, "Which licence ...


11

Proposed wording: off-topic: This question does not appear to relate to open source, within the scope defined in the [help]. (Changed wording in bold - the final close reason will not require bold.)


10

I would be of the opinion that "software" as a tag would become overused and cumbersome and ultimately completely useless (like a "computer" tag on Superuser).. It'd make more sense to tag non-software questions with the other tags, like you suggest - hardware, robotics, data, etc –


10

“Is X open source?” — No. That's a question about a specific piece of software, not a question about open source. Doing the legwork to research the provenance of all the pieces of a software package isn't what this site is about. “X has this license, does this clause make it non-open souce?” — Yes, that's a suitably-focused, on-topic question.


10

Any question that's specifically relevant to open source works and projects should be on-topic. If “the question only tends to arise in an open-source context”, it's on-topic. In particular, avoid the temptation of “there's already a Stack Exchange site for that”. The existence of another site is largely irrelevant to decide the scope of this site. Quoting ...


10

I think they should. Wikipedia follows the Open Source ideas, the license being first GFDL, later CC-BY-SA. These licenses are fully in the idea behind open source, the only thing is they have no source (as they aren't code). Question about Creative Commons was asked before, so I think we can count Wikipedia as an Open project, as it has a license that falls ...


9

This specific question I don't think the question is asking for recommendations of VCS. Instead, it is asking for knowledge about the existence of VCS: the OP has a problem about collaboration, which he wishes to solve with a program. VCS is likely not the only way to do this, so other answers may be valid as well. However, that does fit into the category ...


9

Having commented, I might as well put up my thoughts: Here's the Area 51 "Blurb" Beta Q&A site for people organizing, marketing or licensing open source development projects. I think the first thing to realize is that this site isn't just about licensing open source projects, but organizing and marketing them as well. I feel as if this is become a ...


9

I agree that before we flood this site with questions all asking about what's the difference between this and that and that and this, that we should instead educate the general public, to make their own judgements and decisions on comparing licenses. Therefore, I'm in favour of having a large answer to detail how people can compare. However, I disagree that ...


9

The community road won't be smooth. Gender equality and involvement has long been an issue in many computer and technology industries. As Open Source development projects are composed of many components of these industries, there's no doubt that gender equality will plague these developments. They're not specific to Open Source, I don't think they belong ...


9

As per the site scope, Open Source is not just code, and people shouldn't have to simply "show" the code to make sure that their question won't be criticized as off-topic. This is similar to what happened when discussing the sites reference policy. Not only that, but the reason demonstrate a lack of understanding for what Open Source is. It doesn't just ...


8

This site is not solely about software. I'm rather partisan of keeping it simple. Definitely keep “Open Source” as the site name. Mention somewhere in the description that this includes all free/libre/whatever-you-want-to-call-it software. And explicitly declare debates about terminology off-topic and have moderators kill them in the bud.


8

Just so that there is some history here (cause everyone loves history, right!) The term "free software" is older, and is reflected in the name of the Free Software Foundation (FSF), an organization founded in 1985 to protect and promote free software. The term "open source" was coined in 1998 by a group of people — the founders of the ...


8

I don't see why they would be off-topic. Licensing is relevant to open source. “What's the difference between <license A> and <license B>” is too broad. But “How do <license A> and <license B> handle this specific aspect” would be a suitable long-tail question.


8

A question that almost exclusively arises when dealing with open source should be considered on topic. What is relevant here is that by having this question on os.SE: It will reach the right audience. It will get approached differently (and thus receive different answers). If these two points do not apply however, the question is likely better asked on ...


8

This would be off topic. Your example question is not about the SUBJECT of open source. The open source component of this question is only coincidental.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible