WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.
Source: Golem reported in August 2024 that, on an annual basis, the German government funded OpenDesk with less than 0.1% of the amount it had been spending on proprietary software.[1]: 1
^Feilner, Markus (5 August 2024). "Zendis: Ein unterschätztes Open-Source-Projekt auf Expansionskurs" [Zendis: An underestimated open-source project on an expansion course]. Golem (in German). pp. 1–3. Archived from the original on 23 August 2024. Retrieved 25 January 2026. Die Microsoft-365-Alternative setzt dazu auf sieben bewährte Open-Source-Werkzeuge, deren Auswahl noch aus Zeiten von Dataport stammt und die Schritt für Schritt modernisiert werden soll. Kritiker monieren, das gehe sehr langsam, auch weil es mit bescheidenen Mitteln geschehe: Der Bund gibt dafür knapp ein Tausendstel dessen aus, was er Jahr für Jahr in proprietäre Softwarelizenzen zahlt. Damit, so die häufigste Kritik, könne man keine konkurrenzfähige Lösung bauen und betreiben. [The Microsoft 365 alternative relies on seven proven open source tools, which were selected back in the Dataport era and are to be modernized step by step. Critics complain that this is happening very slowly, partly because it is being done with modest resources: the federal government is spending just under one-thousandth of what it pays each year for proprietary software licenses. The most common criticism is that this is not enough to build and operate a competitive solution.]
^Jennings-Trace, Ellen (31 October 2025). "The International Criminal Court is ditching Microsoft software for an open source alternative". TechRadar. Retrieved 25 January 2026. The International Criminal Court (ICC) is looking to replace its internal work environments to move away from US-made software in fear of retaliation from the US administration. [...] Early in 2025, Chief Prosecutor for the ICC Kamrin Khan, after being hit with sanctions from the Trump administration, was disconnected from his email service.
^"Internationaler Strafgerichtshof: Wechsel zu deutschem Officepaket nach US-Sanktionen" [International Criminal Court: Change to German office suite after US sanctions]. Der Spiegel (in German). 30 October 2025. Retrieved 25 January 2026. Der Internationale Strafgerichtshof (IStGH) stellt einem Medienbericht zufolge seine Bürosoftware von Microsoft auf den Prüfstand und will diese durch das deutsche Programmpaket OpenDesk ersetzen. [...] Die US-Regierung hatte wiederholt Sanktionen gegen Richter und Ankläger des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs verhängt. Im Sommer wurde bekannt, dass der Chefankläger Karim Khan seit Anfang des Jahres keinen Zugriff mehr auf seine dienstlichen E-Mails hatte, die auf der Infrastruktur von Microsoft lagen. [According to a media report, the International Criminal Court (ICC) is reviewing its Microsoft office software and plans to replace it with the German software package OpenDesk. [...] The US government had repeatedly imposed sanctions against judges and prosecutors of the International Criminal Court. In the summer, it was revealed that Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan had been unable to access his official emails, which were hosted on Microsoft's infrastructure, since the beginning of the year.]
^Robinson, Dan (31 October 2025). "International Criminal Court dumps Microsoft Office". The Register. Retrieved 25 January 2026. The ICC will switch from Microsoft's productivity wares to openDesk, an open source office and collaboration suite provided by the Center for Digital Sovereignty (ZenDiS) on behalf of the German Federal Ministry of the Interior. [...] ICC's Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan reportedly lost access to his Microsoft email account.
^Allen, Tom (31 October 2025). "International Criminal Court drops Microsoft for open source". Computing. Archived from the original on 10 December 2025. Retrieved 25 January 2026. ...the ICC has since confirmed that it is moving its internal work environment from Microsoft Office to openDesk, an open source software suite designed for the public sector.
Created by Newslinger (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.
Overall: Nominated two days after moved from draftspace, over 2x minimum size per DYKcheck, qpq done (though the nom page says not needed), checked for cited hooks & copyvio. Both hooks are interesting, though I think I prefer ALT0 for focusing on OpenDesk and not its comparisons to MS Office. ScalarFactor (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe the logos should be used on any these pages. They do not meaningfully aid reader comprehension; rather, they appear to serve only a decorative function. That is not an appropriate use of logos under long-standing practice.
Some editors on Wikimedia Commons have relied on a broad interpretation of the "threshold of originality" to argue that many logos are not eligible for copyright protection. However, that reasoning could be extended to nearly any logo. Even if a particular logo falls below the threshold of originality for copyright purposes, that does not automatically eliminate other potential legal or policy concerns, nor does it override English Wikipedia’s more restrictive content-use practices.
Historically, English Wikipedia has required that logos be used primarily for identification purposes, typically at the top of the article about the organization itself, rather than as decorative elements within lists, tables, or unrelated pages. Expanding their use beyond that narrow identification function moves away from that long-standing principle.
In short, regardless of how liberally the threshold of originality is interpreted on Commons, the use of logos here does not appear to satisfy the core rationale for allowing them in the first place. RickyCourtney (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
RickyCourtney, the threshold of originality is not relevant here because these particular logos are released under free and open-source software licenses, which explicitly meet the licensing criteria on both the English Wikipedia (Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Free licenses) and Wikimedia Commons (c:Commons:Licensing). LibreOffice, Apache OpenOffice, and OpenOffice.org, as well as their logos, are also freely licensed.On the other hand, the Microsoft Office article has a total of 11 logos, 14 screenshots, and an additional image depicting physical packaging art, none of which are freely licensed (because Microsoft Office is proprietary software), with apparently no objections in the article talk page history. If you would like to go to each of the other office suite articles mentioned here and propose that their images be removed, you are free to do so. Until there is consensus to remove these logos from all such articles, I support treating the OpenDesk article like the other free and open-source office suite articles, with freely licensed logos in the article that serve as an illustrative aid depicting the software components of the article subject. — Newslingertalk19:33, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Even freely licensed images must still comply with Wikipedia’s content and style guidelines regarding appropriate use. The question is not whether the files are legally permissible, but whether their placement serves a clear encyclopedic purpose.
Wikipedia discourages the use of images for purely decorative effect (see MOS:IMAGEREL and MOS:DECORATION). In this case, the logos are being placed in tables of components in a way that does not appear to materially improve reader comprehension. The text already identifies the software components unambiguously. The logos function primarily as visual embellishment rather than as necessary identification.
With respect to the Microsoft Office comparison: the existence of multiple images in that article does not establish that similar usage is appropriate here. More importantly, Microsoft Word’s logo, for example, is not inserted into a component table on the Microsoft Office article or on List of Microsoft 365 applications and services. The images there are tied directly to identification or explanatory context, not to decoration.
My concern is therefore not about licensing status but about encyclopedic purpose. If there is a clear, reader-centered justification for why including each logo materially improves understanding beyond what the text provides, I would welcome that explanation. Absent that, the current use appears ornamental rather than informative. RickyCourtney (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
All right. The Wikidata entry for ZenDis currently has "of" as the English label and "in" as an English alias. Frankly, I have no preference between "of" and "in" as long as the same name is used consistently in this article (i.e. in the infobox and the rest of the article text). — Newslingertalk19:37, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No. I do not believe logos should be used on any of these pages in this context. They do not meaningfully aid reader comprehension beyond the organization’s name alone, and in some cases they may actually be harder to recognize at a glance. Logos do not serve as an important illustrative aid to understanding the subject; they convey nothing beyond a brand or logotype. As such, they function primarily as decorative elements. That is not an appropriate use of logos under long-standing practice. While these specific logos are not eligible for copyright protection, historically, English Wikipedia has required that logos be used primarily for identification purposes, typically at the top of the article about the organization itself, rather than as elements within lists, tables, or unrelated pages. Expanding their use beyond that narrow identification function moves away from that long-standing principle. RickyCourtney (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The logos are not merely decorative; they serve as aids for identification, as on other articles. However, the revision by OP with the full-text logos is a little clunky, and doesn't match the small, unobtrusive, square icons in similar tables on other articles. I've prepared a table in my sandbox: Special:Permalink/1342544774 with small, square icons instead that might make the argument in favor of inclusion stronger. Semisalsa (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You say these logos/icons serve as aids for identification. Could you explain how they meaningfully improve identification beyond the name itself, which already conveys the information clearly and unambiguously? RickyCourtney (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I think it's the same reason icons are helpful on a computer desktop, or in a file explorer. They serve as visual aids for the eye to more quickly locate which item in a list you are looking for. Semisalsa (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=link}
