Talk:Zotero

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Zotero_Firefox_extension_for_citations if you're interested in Zotero and Wikipedia. — Omegatron 14:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Screenshot

I don't see anything wrong with having the screenshot here. WP does already have COinS on Wikipedia:Book sources. But I don't think that is relevant--in addition to showing experimental WP support for COinS in citations, it shows Zotero in action. And that is all that matters. --Karnesky 05:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It's misleading, though. We should show it in action in a way that it is actually used. When it's implemented on Wikipedia, we can add a screenshot showing it extracting info from a real article, not a bunch of random citations from different articles on an experimental page. — Omegatron 15:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia now has COinS in the standard citation templates, so this point appears moot. 131.215.220.112 21:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFL License torpedos the project

I posted something similar to the general forum on the zotero website as well.

Why do you not mention the actual license? I was unable to find mention of the license under which zotero is released on this site. I had to google the information, which I found on this wiki for zotero.

Apparently, you release zotero under the Academic Free License (AFL), although I was not even able to find what version of the AFL you are actually using.

The AFL is a little-used license which as of version 1.2 is NOT compatible with the GPL. Even the new version of the AFL is not known to be compatible.

Your license is free as in beer, not free as in freedom. The fact that your main web page ambiguously refers to being "free" leads people to believe you use the GPL or a GPL-compatible license. At the very least you should name the license and license version prominently.

Unless you use a license that is GPL-compatible, your source is not "free and open" as you claim. Until you switch to the GPL, I see no reason to put any amount of time into either using or helping out. I certainly see no reason to abandon the excellent proprietary software I'm using, EndNoteX, for a less feature-rich and buggy piece of proprietary software such as yours, even if you do give me the "priviledge" of providing you free development help.

I liken what you're doing to getting free code monkeys to help you develop a product to eventually sell. Is this not your plan? You only need the AFL if that's the plan.

You're just torpedoing the entire project by not using the GPL. Academics want the GPL. You seem to want academics. It's simply rude and insulting to offer what could be a very important piece of software in the academic community in this manner.

My two cents. Aschoeff 21:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aschoeff (talk • contribs) 21:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

It is under the Educational Community License. See the forums. Your slant on the AFL is also wrong--it is free/open source (though not gpl compatible)--Karnesky

[edit] Request for a Clarification

People love Bookmarks and Favorites (yes, I need a citation for this). Would I be correct in saying that this type of tool which, "aims to be a 'next-generation research tool' for students and researchers of all genres" is a 10x, or 100x, bookmark replacement? Sure sounds like bookmarks on steroids to me.--TMH 23:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)