Talk:RhodeCode

GPL licensing controversy
As I stated in my edit comment, I believe the "licensing controversy" paragraph is partly synthesis. You cite the "LICENSE" file and some entries from the GPL FAQ, but it's original research to claim that these FAQ entries apply in this case. And it's not obvious that they do.

Per verifiability policy, as long as there aren't reliable sources saying that RhodeCode's use of GPL is conflicting, you cannot claim that on Wikipedia. -- intgr [talk] 15:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have reformulated the claim. Is it better now? -- Andrew Shadura (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Zaniphrom, could you please stop introducing meaningless changes? -- Andrew Shadura (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Belamp, could you please stop introducing opinion into wikipedia? -- Brian Butler (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Brian, WP:OPINION clearly says:

Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will – by definition – be in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy.
 * I've been trying to clearly and accurately describe one of the points. If you have more facts to add, please do so. -- Andrew Shadura (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem isn't that I disagree with these statements. The problem is that there's no way for an ordinary person to verify these claims without hiring a lawyer. And note that I'm not just nitpicking, WP:NPOV and WP:V are among the most important principles to follow while editing Wikipedia.
 * The only good source currently is the SFC one, thanks for adding that. While it could be considered primary source or a self-published source, it's also an expert opinion. There are some caveats dealing with these; if you haven't, please read those two sections I linked. Also per WP:WEASEL, these claims should clearly be attributed to Bradley M. Kuhn. I'd just remove the references to the license file, the GPL and the FAQ entirely.
 * The SFC article seems to avoid any concrete statements on non-compatibility. The words "unclear", "ambiguous" and "problematic" are used, I think that's the best way to describe the situation, rather than trying to prove that it's not compatible. -- intgr [talk] 17:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Brian Butler has just reverted the whole section thus violating WP:3RR, and I can't do any changes as I'd violate it too then. Actually, strictly speaking, I have already violated it if we count my reversion of your changes, but anyway, I don't want to make it any worse now.
 * I agree that my original formulation was way too a strong statement, sticking to the Conservancy's wording would be better. -- Andrew Shadura (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Engaging in edit wars is never a productive thing to do, even if nobody violates 3RR. If your edits are reverted, it's best to refrain from re-reverting, but instead start a discussion and avoid editing until there is a rough consensus.
 * Anyway, I added my own take on the licensing issue to the article. I created a new section called "Software" to make it clearer what's being licensed. Can we all agree on this, or does this issue still need further discussion? -- intgr [talk] 17:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think that the way you wrote about it describes the issue the most neutral still precise way. -- Andrew Shadura (talk) 07:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Since we last discussed this, LWN.net published an article on this topic. If you're interested, it's fine to add to the article what can be backed up by the source. After reading this, I now understand the reason why the license change is legally problematic &mdash; I previously incorrectly assumed that RhodeCode owned all the copyright, but it turns out there were outside contributors as well. -- intgr [talk] 09:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add that yourself. By the way, is that article a good enough source to restore the other Wikipedia article we've discussed previously? --Andrew Shadura (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have plenty of other things keeping me busy right now. As for Kallithea, LWN certainly counts, but you need multiple (at least two) independent sources with substantial coverage. See WP:GNG for the criteria. -- intgr [talk] 21:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

(Karensage (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)) Not sure how to sign my name

Removed all statements so trying to get rid of flags. Sorry I am a newbee

"a more efficient and secure way to manage source code ... behind a firewall"
What does that mean? What does additional software do better than just the revision control system? 2003:CE:474E:AF00:6129:1C56:9A85:CE67 (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

"Operating system	Windows, Linux, Unix"
"We’re sorry but we wont support Windows, and there are no plans to do it ATM." https://community.rhodecode.com/t/upgrading-a-windows-v1-5-3/477/7 2003:CC:E725:B000:1003:C3FF:1CB3:4003 (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)