Talk:CodePlex

Comments posted to their FAQ page
I just want to replicate these here in case they disappear later. Today (2006-02-09), |their FAQ page has four user submitted comments. Here they are verbatim:
 * 1) Should the technology be microsoft-oriented, like .Net / Com / SQL Server, or can it be anything? Like a Linux Bash scripts? (posted by "vermorel" on Jan 7)
 * 2) There are no technology requirements, only the three requirements above. (posted by "jwanagel" on Jan 27)
 * 3) I can name about 3 project the guys at Microsoft have put up here that don't meet that 3rd requirement. The fourth should state that you have to use TFS! I hate that some Microosft teams think this is just a release site! We want to see the interim code! (posted by "z2bass" on Jan 27)
 * 4) You mean like the /CodePlex project? :-p (posted by "tomhollander" on Fri)

For the first three comments, they were probably posted this year (2007), and for the last comment, who's date is just "Fri", I guess is either today Feb 9th 2007 (since today is a Friday), or last Friday. Gronky 00:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Clarifications to above
The projects referenced in the third comment do include the source code, the complaint was that there were not beta versions of the source code released, only the final version of the source code was released. The last comment means that the software running the CodePlex site itself is not open source, but that is the same as with all open source hosting sites (e.g. SourceForge, Google Code Hosting, Tigris, etc). jwanagel 09:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "All" is too strong. It's true that codes behind SourceForge is not open source, but GForge, which is behind RubyForge for example, certainly is. Sanxiyn 07:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

In support of the above comment, a further example of a large open source hosting site, which is itself run on open source code is Launchpad_%28website%29 Gnubyexample 10:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnubyexample (talk • contribs)

Hosts open source projects?
I just created a project there (not yet public). When setting up the license I never saw the restriction that it must be "open source" license (WP defines open source as publishing source code so that others can change it!). All Codeplex requires is that code be made public. Sure the default licenses are open source licenses. But it also allows me to write my own license. I didnt see anything stated that would prevent me from giving people only a read only access to the source. Can someone clarify it? --soum talk 14:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Projects licensed under an OSI-approved license represent the majority of our projects. However, we do allow for broader cases of code sharing which may include the use of academic licenses and other custom licenses." CodePlex Information and Discussion User:cksgk8

Other projects
We badly need a list of CodePlex projects. I have merged in an article, that is likely to be deleted, and there are many other projects that can be added. Perhaps knowledgeable editors can help expand this list? Smile a While (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There is no reason to clutter the article with a list of projects hosted on CodePlex.  Non-notable projects should especially be avoided.  However, notable projects which are hosted on CodePlex could have their own articles added to Category:CodePlex projects much like Category:SourceForge projects.  --Hamitr (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
Fixed a reference to Richard Stallman as "Richard noBallman", and rewrote part of the first sentence which had been similarly vandalized. I'm unsure if I needed to note this, but here you go.

137.150.200.240 (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Outercurve does NOT manage or oversee Codeplex.com
Hey, I'm the Developer Advocate from the Outercurve Foundation. We do NOT have any really connection with Codeplex.com other than that a number of our projects are hosted on it. I would change it but I feel it's best if someone who doesn't have a personal interest in it would do so. Could someone look into that and change it? Hammy (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)