Software Award: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
m ({{delete}}) |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{delete}} |
|||
The OLPC project has or is bound to accumulate a lot of competent people, many of whom will take the time to evaluate software or content submitted by [[publishers]]. |
|||
A way to potentially improve the systematic study of submitted software, to increase the motivation of publishers to participate and to increase media attention could be to form evaluation committees with criteria catalogs for software and other content and to offer several software and content awards. |
|||
Material under a free license, such as the [[GPL|GNU General Public License]] or the [[Creative Commons]] Attribution or Attribution/Share-alike licenses, could be eligible to receive a higher level of the award (e.g. gold status) while material under more restrictive licenses (which could be included in school and regional libraries {{IntRef|publishers|pub}}) could receive a lesser award. |
|||
Publishers who had successfully submitted material could be eligible to submit a limited amount of non-free content and software for evaluation and would receive a similar award if the software or content met the requirements of the criteria catalog and won the favor of the jury. Publishers could also be eligible to show an "OLPC contributor" logo on all products. |
|||
== See also == |
|||
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Award_for_Projects_of_Social_Benefit Free Software Award for Projects of Social Benefit] |
|||
* [http://www.gpi-online.de/front_content.php?idcat=1275 gpi-online.de: Comenius-Awards] (in German) |
|||
[[Category:Feedback]] |
|||
Latest revision as of 08:37, 30 July 2013
|
A request has been made for this page to be deleted. If you disagree with its deletion, please explain why on its talk page. Before deleting verify that no links will break. |