Talk:Ventoy

I got the following unexpected response

https://validator.w3.org/check?ss=&sp=&uri=https://www.ventoy.net/en/doc_license.html

"500 Can't connect to www.ventoy.net:443 (certificate verify failed)"

.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 01:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah the website's security certificate has expired. Hopefully that gets fixed soon. - Ahunt (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

And it seems to have been fixed today. - Ahunt (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

How does it work?

A section that explains how does it work would be nice. 93.243.205.70 (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

biased/undue weight?

concerned about the security part as well as "that the software author has not responded to the concerns over the blobs for several years" feels like it should be mentioned that they have now responded https://github.com/ventoy/Ventoy/issues/3224 2A0A:EF40:68A:6301:C506:9A79:8469:500 (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, in the interest of WP:NPOV, I have just added statements (with references) describing Ventoy author's response to the concerns. Nyq (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Free software?

Ventoy is distributed under the GPL-3.0 license, which is considered free. However, concerns have been raised about the usage of blobs. As it was already stated, the Tails project is a free project, while it uses blobs. Following that logic, Ventoy is also free, however both the website and the project's README only describe it as open-source. So, free or not? ~2026-67119-9 (talk) 12:26, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

This is not FOSS, although it seems to provide a part of the source code, and it labels whole project as GPL licensed, which could only concern to the published part. Narcis Garcia (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Controversies section

Half the article seems to be about the open source controversy. Are we sure that's appropriate? Is it really known mostly for these controversies?  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  18:13, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I also think that the controversy is over represented without the needed information, what blobs when are they run and their functions. Also alternative options when a product is insecure should be pointed no ? --Panic2k4 (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

it's not a "controversies" section; while those are disallowed, sections about specific controversies are generally allowed as long as they are well reported and cited. removing criticism section template as it does not apply. .qwertydotplus (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

technically my statement here was wrong (orthogonally to the statement itself): WP:CRIT is an essay, so technically whether it allows something or not is irrelevant. however the overall statement still stands: WP:CRIT says that an article shouldn't generally have a "criticism" or "controversies" section (a section devoted to broad criticism or controversy), not that it shouldn't contain any sections regarding controversies.

i've slimmed down the section regardless, so it should in any case now pass WP:NPOV as well (assuming it didn't already). .qwertydotplus (talk) 02:07, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Looks good to me now. Nice one Showmetheapi (talk) 20:09, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

As of the latest revision, there's no mention of the controversy at all. I don't think this is an acceptable response either: we've gone from undue weight to no weight at all, which is a massive over-correction. Showmetheapi (talk) 23:36, 1 October 2026 (UTC)