72 comments

Add a comment…

Sign in

prestine

Your email address

Check!

invalid email

(thinking…)

Reset

or sign in with

• 
• 

UserVoice password

Forgot password?

Create a password

Your name

I agree to the terms of service

You'll receive a confirmation email with a link to create a password (optional).

Signed in as (Sign out)

Close

Close

Post comment Submitting...

• Thomas commented  ·  January 02, 2012  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  The above suggestion is worth considering because Open source already changed the world.This Mendely Desktop software lacks a lot of things but it has a potentional to become a revolutionary software which can change the world rapidly like wickipedia or many other who followed the opensource development model.

• alberto commented  ·  December 25, 2011  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Please consider this suggestion as it will improve development and features. A faster release cycle would be fantastic.

• Anonymous commented  ·  December 09, 2011  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  It will be very good if you could publish your desktop under GPL or compatible license. That will boost its development, features and make it localized and modified according to the needs of much wider population. Indeed, this will make much more audiences for you.

• Leticiasm commented  ·  October 26, 2011  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Igual da unisinos

• Gabriel Perren commented  ·  October 12, 2011  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Yes.
  "Mendeley would not be a viable product without the work of the Zotero and CSL communities. Mendeley's Word and OpenOffice.org plugins are still based upon the first generation Zotero Word plugins that I wrote many years ago. Before we replaced these plugins with our second generation plugins, Mendeley never made any attempt to submit patches back to us, and I doubt that's because our code was perfect and they weren't necessary. Mendeley uses Frank Bennett's citeproc-js for formatting citations. Finally, Mendeley has attempted to appropriate the code that I and others wrote for Zotero for a web importer of their own, but didn't think it might be nice to let me or any of the others who contributed to the original work know that it exists, and obviously did not submit any upstream patches. Mendeley likes to make claims about "openness," but in reality, it's not any more open than proprietary alternatives. It appropriates our (Zotero) code where possible, but makes no attempt to contribute back. The development of Mendeley's CSL editor, the only major new open source project that Mendeley has created, appears to have stalled. If Mendeley were to release its client under a GPL license, it would go a long way toward restoring our faith in Mendeley's benevolence and vision."

• Christopher William Pantaleon Lyons commented  ·  October 12, 2011  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  This.
  "Mendeley would not be a viable product without the work of the Zotero and CSL communities. Mendeley's Word and OpenOffice.org plugins are still based upon the first generation Zotero Word plugins that I wrote many years ago. Before we replaced these plugins with our second generation plugins, Mendeley never made any attempt to submit patches back to us, and I doubt that's because our code was perfect and they weren't necessary. Mendeley uses Frank Bennett's citeproc-js for formatting citations. Finally, Mendeley has attempted to appropriate the code that I and others wrote for Zotero for a web importer of their own, but didn't think it might be nice to let me or any of the others who contributed to the original work know that it exists, and obviously did not submit any upstream patches. Mendeley likes to make claims about "openness," but in reality, it's not any more open than proprietary alternatives. It appropriates our (Zotero) code where possible, but makes no attempt to contribute back. The development of Mendeley's CSL editor, the only major new open source project that Mendeley has created, appears to have stalled. If Mendeley were to release its client under a GPL license, it would go a long way toward restoring our faith in Mendeley's benevolence and vision."

• Simon commented  ·  September 17, 2011  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Mendeley would not be a viable product without the work of the Zotero and CSL communities. Mendeley's Word and OpenOffice.org plugins are still based upon the first generation Zotero Word plugins that I wrote many years ago. Before we replaced these plugins with our second generation plugins, Mendeley never made any attempt to submit patches back to us, and I doubt that's because our code was perfect and they weren't necessary. Mendeley uses Frank Bennett's citeproc-js for formatting citations. Finally, Mendeley has attempted to appropriate the code that I and others wrote for Zotero for a web importer of their own, but didn't think it might be nice to let me or any of the others who contributed to the original work know that it exists, and obviously did not submit any upstream patches. Mendeley likes to make claims about "openness," but in reality, it's not any more open than proprietary alternatives. It appropriates our (Zotero) code where possible, but makes no attempt to contribute back. The development of Mendeley's CSL editor, the only major new open source project that Mendeley has created, appears to have stalled. If Mendeley were to release its client under a GPL license, it would go a long way toward restoring our faith in Mendeley's benevolence and vision.

• tim commented  ·  July 27, 2011  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Considering that your software is already heavily based on the open source stack (it is clearly based on Qt4 and KDE4 libs) it seems it would behoove you to open source it. KDE4's reader (okular) is better than the Mendeley one, there is no reason why Okular and Mendeley couldn't share these improvements. Additionally, it would give back to the community that is making your business possible while not hurting you in anyway since you make your money on the document storage and syncing service.

• Anonymous commented  ·  July 27, 2011  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  No expert on licensing, but there is so much potential here if there were more people working on it. Alternatively, would be happy to pay a small fee (as a current free user) for the sake of stability and features.

  Even better, maybe there is a way to get hold of some of that university money that currently goes to Endnote, while still keeping it free for individual use!!

• Caleb commented  ·  July 25, 2011  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  As a Linux user I wonder why people are so insistent. There is nothing inherently wrong with closed source software, in its place. There are some benefits to open source but its not always the be all and end all. A bigger requirement for me is that it supports my OS: Ubuntu.
  Thanks,

• Anonymous commented  ·  July 11, 2011  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  I am happy with the materials you have.

• Pascal commented  ·  July 04, 2011  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Mendeley development seem to stall... sadly! Involving the community by releasing it as libre software would definitely boost development and ensure the future of Mendeley.

• Adminrobert.knight (Admin, Mendeley) commented  ·  July 01, 2011  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Hi ianni67,

  Mendeley Desktop is just that - software for the desktop. For tablets you're not looking at just a few tweaks to the interface but the whole focus is different - more emphasis on reading papers and less on organization.

• ianni67 commented  ·  July 01, 2011  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  I fully agree: because of its features your desktop is candidate to become a reference under platforms such as android and linux (think also of Meego, Bada, and other mobile platforms based on linux). To do so, however, some characteristics should be improved, mainly from the usability point of view, in order to cope with touch-based devices. This would become easier with the help of the open source community.
  Also, keep in mind that most linux users do not love closed-source software.

• EmpIzza commented  ·  May 13, 2011  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Well, I'm about to run out of votes since there are alot of things which could be improved, but if it was released under GPL I could just fix em myself, now thats a thought!

  I agree fully with Matthias, even if it isn't released under GPL, please just release the BibTeX export module under GPL so we can fix it!

  Please :)

• lhrkkk commented  ·  March 18, 2011  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  I think mendeley is a promising project. It helps the scientists share and exchange our mind (also resources) more efficiently . It plays a roll just like facebook. I wish it will develop and spread like facebook too. I think a free software can help to do this ,and it also coincide its' spirit. Once the user of the platform is large enough, the service will make a quantity of profit, just like the redhat linux. This is a project that benefit to the human beings. I am stand by it. The software published by GPL licence has spread and progress very fast .There must be some reasons. If mendeley is published by GPL license, it will be got and duplicated more easily. And it can be a standard platform like facebook. If it can be published as a part of the debian linux or gnome desktop environment, it will be a success.

• Reece commented  ·  February 21, 2011  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Mendeley is not obliged to open source their code and I am fine with using commercial code that works. However, I am very concerned about Mendeley's ability to deliver quality code in a way that balances their need to make money and ensures long-term innovation and responsiveness. The lethargic response to the debilitating duplication issue is an example of a bug that likely would have been fixed much more quickly (or perhaps completely avoided through better testing) in an open development model. So, please consider opening your code -- not because you're obliged or because of people's qualms, but because it will create a better tool. Ultimately, a better tool is what will draw users and, as a consequence, create long-term success for the company.

• Mohammed commented  ·  February 10, 2011  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Many specific perks regarding Mendeley's advances are given in other comments. A different but related issue is that many of us in the open source community are very principled. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels a little hypocritical every time I use Mendeley. It's as if I'm using/endorsing a product that supports something unethical, like a store that abuses its employees, a meat market that abuses its animals, or a business that donates to a corrupt state. While Mendeley doesn't strike me as such a harmful business, it participates in the proprietary system that many of us believe is harmful. Yet Mendeley is a perfect example of something that shouldn't be proprietary.

  A large segment of Mendeley's target audience is part of the open source community. That many of us feel strongly about this issue is clear by the other comments and number of votes about this suggestion, not to mention correlated ones (regarding BibTeX and DjVu support, for instance).

  Back to the issue of Mendeley's advancement, the votes and comments here don't represent the degree to which going GPL or open source would be beneficial. That's because many folks in the open source community aren't represented here due to the very fact that Mendeley isn't open source. I wonder how many individuals use or develop open source reference managers like JabRef but would instead use or develop Mendeley if it were open source. And I wonder how many of us who now use and would like to develop Mendeley will switch as those competitors come to meet more of our needs. I've given reason to believe that these numbers are quite large. There's a lot at stake here---even more than the obvious figures indicate.

• Matthias commented  ·  February 01, 2011  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  There are many small issues with BibTeX export that should be easily fixable. I can imagine that you'd be able to make the BibTeX export a plugin or shared library that can be GPLed and then improved by the community. I'd go and work on it ... rather than testing workaround after workaround in Mendeley Desktop to get my BibTeX right.

• Daniel Peebles commented  ·  January 03, 2011  ·  Flag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Why not something like libmendeley? Keep the crucial stuff private in a closed-source library (libmendeley, http://feedback.mendeley.com/forums/4941-mendeley-feedback/suggestions/1345873-libmendeley?ref=title), and release the rest under a decent license. Then we could fix the Mac OS UI issues (i.e., rewrite the whole thing in Cocoa) ourselves.