Software Award: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
== See also == |
== See also == |
||
* [[Software market]] |
|||
== External links == |
|||
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Award_for_Projects_of_Social_Benefit Free Software Award for Projects of Social Benefit] |
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Award_for_Projects_of_Social_Benefit Free Software Award for Projects of Social Benefit] |
||
Revision as of 14:09, 25 August 2007
This page is not maintained by the OLPC team. (See: About this wiki)
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 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 [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.