Talk:NASA World Wind

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Free software Portal This article is part of WikiProject Free Software, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve free software-related articles.
B	rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
Low	rated as low-importance on the assessment scale

Contents 1 WorldWind in Wikipedia? 2 WW image copyright 3 One of these layers, Wikipedia 4 "free and open" claim 5 Neutrality of this Article 6 WW2d link

[edit] WorldWind in Wikipedia?

Are there any plans for WorldWind URL support in wikipedia? - NevilleDNZ

Please have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. ;-) --BLueFiSH 06:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ThanX, check out [1] on how to add new URL types, like [2]. NevilleDNZ 03:05, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WW image copyright

Please, could someone check out the image NASA World Wind.jpg (below) because of the copyright marked there, because I think should be a better copyright description... because this is a open source software.... so doesn't it has the same license of the software...?

Image:NASA World Wind.jpg --Henriquevicente 22:34, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)Henriquevicente

[edit] One of these layers, Wikipedia

One of these layers, Wikipedia - I'm not sure if this self reference is authorised here. Maybe not in a section of the article, only in the external link. What do you think ? --DLL 20:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is a problem - It isn't a problem to mention Wikipedia in an article if the topic relates to Wikipedia. For example, the above is ok, but a link in Australia to, for example, Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board, or a link in Mark to User:Mark, or a comment saying "For a list of musicians with Wikipedia articles, see... " All IMHO of course. -- Chuq 02:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok Chuq, you're right. --DLL 17:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No he's not. The topic doesn't relate to Wikipedia. Why should we mention that it has a Wikipedia plugin when there are hundreds of other plugins that are unmentioned? These kinds of self-references look out of place when the information is redistributed. Superm401 - Talk 00:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "free and open" claim

In the Competition section, the article makes this claim: NASA World Wind will always be free and open. What is the basis for that claim. How is it not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL? - Walkiped ^{(T | C)} 22:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It's an implication of the fact that the license is open source. It is also a legally supportable statement since NASA is making it as a comment about their license. Thus if they try to (for example) withdraw the license any published versions, that would give you grounds for suing them. Public comments about licenses become a part of the license even if you didn't mean them to. (this isn't legal advice.) RussNelson 06:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I had already removed that. However, Gurch added it back in a confusing and ill-summarized edit, which actually reverted his own previous edit. I've reverted his second edit, except that I think we can keep Geody. Superm401 - Talk 23:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. It's a redlink, so I'm leaving it out for now. Superm401 - Talk 23:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the article about Geody. --Eltener 00:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks! - Walkiped ^{(T | C)} 01:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"will always be free [...]" ok, nobody knows that, but why did you remove every other free from the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.24.184.89 (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

I have a source that says NOSA is not a free license and there is no opposing source (that I know of). Superm401 - Talk 23:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the FSF's statement is nonsense. A Free Software license can't give you permission to relicense code from one license to the NOSL. The fact that the NOSL explicitly says "original contribution" is a reflection of the underlying law. They say it explicitly, but it's implicit in every other license. So why should the NOSL not be a free software license simply because it writes down what others omit? RussNelson 06:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

this is FSF's statement and they don't have any trademark on 'free software' (or even "Free Software") term ;) But i asked about other 'free' you deleted ("WW2D is cross-platform, free..." and "add-ons and plugins for World Wind are freely...") ww2d and add-ons don't use NOSA (most of the add-ons are PD or CC)

Does the FSF have a claim on the phrase "free and open"? We dont claim to comply with GPL's definition of free, NOSA is very obviously an OSI license and was approved by them, there are no misrepresentations of that fact. It is 'free' as in no cost for the source and open in that you can modify it for your uses. Adamhill 10 January 2007

First of all, {no} one's disputing that it's open in the sense of Open Source. It's under an OSI-approved license and thus is open source. It's true that the FSF doesn't have a registered trademark on the word free, but if you don't have an opposing source we shouldn't call World Wind free. As for the add-ons, we should only say they're free if they all are. That doesn't seem to be the policy of the linked sites; they are all gratis, so we can say that. If you only want to say free as in cost, use gratis, again unless you have a source that says free should be used to refer to NOSA. Superm401 - Talk 07:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure I could find a license-discuss posting in which I've claimed that all open source software is free software. I can that as a source to say that NASA Worldwind is free software. RussNelson 01:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not a great source. If it was on OSI's website, it might be worth pointing out (and not just here). Superm401 - Talk 01:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, how is NOSA LGPL-compatible? Does anyone have a source for that? Superm401 - Talk 07:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

For now, I've left in mentions of the word free, but removed "free software". Superm401 - Talk 07:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Source: From the GNU License page talking about the LGPL "This is a free software license, but not a strong copyleft license, because it permits linking with non-free modules." So one is permitted to link non-free and LGPL modules. On the subject of free: The phrase the GNU quotes is taken out of context from the whole NOSA license. At the top of NOSA, there is a definition ""Contributor" means.....and any entity that makes a Modification." So all 'original contributions' are communicative. Any other interpretation is silly seeing that it is an OSI license, in which modification and addition is encouraged. I would like to know if that statement on the page about 'free' is Eben Mogen's official position or any other lawyer at the EFF. Otherwise it is just an opinion of *someone* at the EFF. Adamhill 14 January 2007

The clause about the FSF not approving the NOSA is unnecessarily vindictive. I've moved it to "External Links". I would think that elaborating on a license dispute is Undue Weight. I still left out the claim to the LGPL, at least until there is a verifiable source that it is compatible. But the LGPL is not compatible with the GPL, as was claimed, it is convertible to the GPL. LGPL specifies that the project can be used in non-free software, GPL specifies that it can't. Also, just because World Wind may not be "free" doesn't mean that everyone who works on it is no longer a member of the free software community. --The Human Spellchecker 19:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

How is it vindictive? We mention that it is OSI-approved. Why should we bury the fact that the FSF doesn't approve it? The idea of neutral point of view is that you present all major viewpoints. It seems like you're giving undue weight to the OSI opinion. How do you propose we define "Free software community", except by those who work on free software? LGPL code is GPL-compatible, since it can be used in GPL projects; that's the meaning of the term "GPL-compatible". See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses . Superm401 - Talk 07:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The World Wind page is NO place for this kind of debate of personal opinion. Since 2004 World Wind users have had no issues with the license. And there are a few works split off from World Wind main. Only on wikipedia and only one or two "editors" seem to have problems with the license. Unless you are adding to the related page content, stop doing pointless edits to it. TomServo - 26 Jan 2007

It is not my opinion that the FSF believes NOSA is unfree. That's a fact. It's also a fact that the FSF has significant influencer in the software community. The article isn't neutral point of view if we ignore their perspective. Clearly, the users accept the license, but this isn't a fan site. We have to represent all points of views, not just those who approve of the software. Superm401 - Talk 19:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You "have a source". Huh? You can legally download it... without paying... that's free - surely... How about spending 10 seconds and checking the website? - Chade —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.101.97.93 (talk) 05:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Russ, this is not the place to argue about whether the FSF's interpretations are correct; that's original research. However, I don't think it's about relicensing. I believe they interpret the license as saying that one could not combine two NOSA codebases are distribute them under NOSA unless you own copyright for both; I do think that interpretation is a bit overliteral. Superm401/Matthew Flaschen 08:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm it seem to follow 0 to 3 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software#Free_software_licenses

[edit] Neutrality of this Article

As a reader of Wikipedia, I find that the way this article is worded makes me question its neutrality, and I thought I'd chime in and let you guys know. When I read this article, I get the impression that someone is telling me "World Wind does X, but hey Google Earth is better so use that." And considering that people are so worried about what the meaning of the word "free" is on this page, I find that ironic. Anyway, another comment (do with it what you will): the target audience for Wikipedia thinks the word "free" means "without price." And if Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia and not a tool to promote an agenda or philosophy, I think that should be taken into consideration when discussing the usage of an english word. Angelo 21:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The interpretation of the word "free" by the target audience should influence World Wind's marketing materials, not a wikipedia article. To give preference to the interpretation of the expression "free software" adopted by World Wind or its target audience over the interpretation that is dominant in any context in which "open source" is well understood would, in fact, be promoting an agenda.

Also, it is not at all clear that the interpretation of "free" adopted by WW's target audience is "gratis" rather than "libre". For example, see http://www.foss4g.org -- "Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FOSS) for Geoinformatics (4G)"

You're joking right? You think that most of the people who read this think that "free" means open source? You really are living in your own world, aren't you? No, you're absolutely wrong about this--the word "free" when applied to software means what you would call "freeware." Angelo 08:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

'You think that most of the people who read this think that "free" means open source?'

First, you seem to be confusing open source software with free software. There's a difference, as is acknowledged by those who have taken issue with World Wind being described as "free" software but not with the "open source" software label.

Second, what "most people who read this think" is not of primary importance. Most people refer to chimpanzees, gibbons, and certain other apes as "monkeys", but they are not monkeys. Should wikipedia call these animals monkeys because of public opinion?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.111.132.11 (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

My comment has absolutely nothing to do with what World Wind "wants" or defines the word to be, and everything to do with what the word "free" means in English when applied to objects (as opposed to beings or people). I'm only concerned about the quality of Wikipedia. I realize that within the software community, "free" has a special meaning, but this is VERY far from being even detectable by the average person. Until the average person understands this meaning of free, I think it should be referred to as "Free Software" in capital letters as is appropriate in English for referring to proper names. Angelo 08:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

'everything to do with what the word "free" means in English when applied to objects (as opposed to beings or people)'

What about the free press? Free speech? Free elections? Your statement is incorrect.

'but this is VERY far from being even detectable by the average person.'

Again, this is not a marketing website for World Wind. Informal, colloquial conventions that are of primary signifcance to the "average person" are not of primary significance to Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.111.132.11 (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

'I think it should be referred to as "Free Software" in capital letters'

I've pointed out in a previous post how the convention you suggest is not established (the expressions "free press", "free speech", and "free elections" are not capitalized). I also provide a link to another Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeware#Comparison_with_other_terms . This provides another example of use of the expression "free software" without capitalization. It affirms the association of the world "free" in "free software" with "libre" rather than "gratis." It also suggests the word "freeware" as a well known alternative to "gratis." Given that the word "freeware" readily expresses the notion that the software is free of monetary cost, without being an ambiguous term, it seems that if authors of this article are genuinely motivated by the need to express that notion in the article, they would use that term. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.111.132.11 (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] WW2d link

http://ww2d.org/ appears to be a placeholder advertising site. Was it once something different? Or am I subject to a really successful man-in-the-middle attack, one that survives three reloads? Embedding the links in a short description of the site might make them easier to use. Thanks to anyone willing to check this; I'll try to look again in a day or two. HLHJ 17:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

There used to be an official WW2D site, but now it looks like the owner forgot to renew the domain... Anyway, I changed the link to SourceForge.