Talk:Free software/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

What about this intro

Please leave comments after. I've gone to lengths to show errors with an alternative intro above. Here's my suggestion for a replacement. Is there anything wrong with these four paragraphs:

Free software is software which can be used in any way, copied, studied, modified, and redistributed with or without modifications. Requirements can be placed on these activities without violating the definition only if they are trivial or if they are the minimum necessary to ensure that further recipients also receive these freedoms. The primary definition of free software is The Free Software Definition, published by Free Software Foundation (FSF). The defining purpose of having these freedoms is so that computer users are free to help themselves and to cooperate with others in a community.

The freedoms to make copies, to redistribute a program, and to use it for any purpose are often restricted by copyright law. The freedoms to study and make modified versions of the program are usually restricted by the practice of distributing programs in a format which computers can run but which humans cannot understand and withholding the human readable source code version. Programs with such restrictions are called proprietary software - the antonym of free software. Note that free software is not defined by price, but by the freedoms mentioned above being available in a sufficiently unfettered manner. Software distributed at no cost is called freeware.

Free software grants these freedoms to recipients by accompanying the software with a licence which gives permission to do these things, and by making the software available in human readable source code form as well as, optionally, in computer readable binary form.

The most commonly used free software licence is the GNU General Public License, published by FSF. As well as granting the freedoms to use, study, modify, and redistribute the software, it adds a requirement that complete source code is made available for all modified versions that are distributed. This requirement implements the oft-debated share-alike concept of copyleft.

(please leave comments here) Gronky 01:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily phrase the first sentence the same way, but my major objection is that it's written like a conclusive summary, but it omits some key characteristics, particularly that access to the source code is a prerequisite. If you don't like the idea of referring to source code in the first sentence, I would suggest phrasing it in a way that makes it clear that you're naming some characteristics of the free software definition, or starting with an entirely different sentence and breaking down a summary into several sentences or a paragraph. 70.69.42.228 05:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite a reference for the second sentence? 70.69.42.228 05:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

In response to "The primary definition of free software is The Free Software Definition," I say, once again, that it's not the FSF's place, yours, or certainly wikipedia's to make any assertion about what is good or valid public practice. The words "free software" are used by many people, and narrowing your criterion to usages that are comparable to the FSF's doesn't make the sentence any more accurate or NPOV than if it were in an article about freeware. 70.69.42.228 05:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd call the fourth sentence (last in 1st paragraph) inaccurate, but it needs a reference, given that you're citing someone else's definition and stating a purpose. 70.69.42.228 05:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

What's the relevance of the first sentence in the second paragraph? 70.69.42.228 05:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"Programs with such restrictions are called proprietary software " - more POV language totalitarianism. Microsoft doesn't use that phrase, I don't use that phrase, my government doesn't use that phrase, and it's not wikipedia's place to correct our practices. Feel free to document a fact like "the FSF's literature and related sites typically refer to programs with such restrictions as proprietary software." 70.69.42.228 05:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"Note that free software is not defined by price, but by " - more language that alludes to correct practice rather than observed fact. This is no better than an article about freeware vendors' usage of "free software" saying "free software is defined by cost." Same objection to "Software distributed at no cost is called freeware." 70.69.42.228 05:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"Free software grants these freedoms " - basically the same objection, I would say "The FSF", or "Parties using the FSF's definition", etcetera. In this particular case, the issue is also that the FSF's definition of free software isn't specific to the methodology of licensing, although many of their practices involve licensing. In a state with no copyright law, distribution of source code is enough, and so on. 70.69.42.228 05:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"The most commonly used free software licence is the GNU General Public License" - no real objection, but this needs a reference. 70.69.42.228 05:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"it adds a requirement that complete source code is made available for all modified versions that are distributed" - the GPL goes far beyond this, requiring the entire program, including entirely separate modules and original non-derivate work to meet the FSF's free software definition. I can factually prove this, it's in the text of the license, it's directly pertinent to this issue, and in my opinion which is as valid as yours, some mention belongs in the introduction.

"This requirement implements the oft-debated share-alike concept of copyleft." - oft-debated? would you be comfortable with this level of nicety and omission of real world fact in an article about Microsoft's licensing? You've glossed over various factual implications of the requirement, and over the very contentious nature of this issue in the computing community. 70.69.42.228 05:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Only way out: back

Ok. I've repeatedly pointed out factual errors in your (70.69.42.228) version, and how your version lacks basic English writing skills. You also don't like my version. It is not acceptable for you to repeatedly revert my edits to restore your version, so we have to find a third way. Let's go back to the way the page was before you landed here and take it slowly, discussing everything that makes you uncomfortable and trying to make small improvements rather than have you just rewrite it the way you like. Gronky 13:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't revert your edits, but my last edit did add new text that you may not have liked. I haven't censored you in any way, I incorporated several parts of your version when I rewrote the introduction, and I modified it many times in response to your complaints. The only edit warring has been on your part. It has been your stance that my contributions are categorically invalid, that my concerns about POV are dismissable, and that you will simply find one reason or another to completely remove any change that I make to the article. Also, I think that you may be at or near the point of violating the three revert rule, and note that it doesn't matter whether I used an indicative verb in the subjunctive mode, or some other horrible quality offense. 70.69.42.228 17:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Your basic premise seems to be that this article should promote the FSF, and that you're not willing to tolerate having the article written from an NPOV, or presenting any downsides, controversy, or limitations of the FSF's definition in a visible location. If that is your stance, I think you'll find that a moderator will side with me on the need to present only the facts of what the FSF says rather than presenting what they say as a fact, and presenting any other pertinent facts (positive or negative) and note worthy opposition. 70.69.42.228 17:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm once again going to restore my work that you reverted, and once again I'm going to try to improve the quality in response to your output and resolve your concerns. Once again, I would ask you not to treat this as an edit war to be resolved by finding a technical way to entirely remove my contributions, but rather, to clean up any problems with my edits, to add or restore anything that you feel I omitted, to resolve any factual errors, to add complaint tags if I've made an unproven but not inherently inaccurate claim, and so on. 70.69.42.228 17:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

We're starting again. When you arrived, I let you use this article as a sandbox because I realised you were new (WP:BITE), but that didn't work. So from here on, the article is back to the way it was before you arrived, and you have to make proper edits. If you introduce errors, those will be reverted. This may seem harsh because your current ratio of errors to sentences is about 1:1, but there is no other way. As always, you're welcome to call for moderation any time. Gronky 18:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't stop you from trying to make this an edit war, but given that you're the only party that's conducting unilateral reversion and censorship, that you've already violated the three reversion rule (I think), and that what you're insisting on is easily POV, I suspect you're not doing yourself any favor by thinking of this as a dispute on a personal level, treating it as a power struggle, and refusing to try to resolve it in the form of seeing both of our concerns resolved. 70.69.42.228 18:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, now the reversion and "censorship" isn't unilateral. Also, strictly speaking, Gronky has only made two reversion. Anon: If you want to add content that is likely to be challenged, you're going to have to include sources. The version Gronky tentatively favors has a clear advantage in this department (though isn't perfect). Simões (^talk/_contribs) 20:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you feel that referring to reversions as censorship qualifies as a personal attack? 70.69.42.228 20:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Userbox

I've made an userbox that you can put on your userpage, its {{user free software}}, but the template also takes an optional parameter, in which you can put anything you like, example {{user free software|develops}} or something. -- Frap 18:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

New article: History of free software

I've started a new article, History of free software, to document the way that free software has existed at each point in time during the last half-century or so, and to document the events with major impacts. So it's a timeline kinda article, not an X vs. Y article. Help and references sought. If you have good links to documents by old-timers, that'd be very helpful. Gronky 22:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Unclear logo images

Can't identify which logo is which, can sum1 who knows which is which label them as 'clockwise from bottom left' or something along these linesPledger166 11:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone launched WikiProject Free Software

WikiProject Free Software has been set up. It has many people listing themselves as participants, but it seems to still need some leadership and some action to develop the project and to build momentum. Some people from here might be able to help. Gronky 01:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What's the neutrality issue?

There's a "POV check" box at the top of the article, which says "See Talk page" - but there's nothing here to explain it. Can someone say what/where the problem is, so that it can be addressed? Thanks. Gronky 18:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I checked that section and made some improvements, and I've asked here for some information on what needs to be checked but have gotten no answer, so I'll remove that tag now. Gronky 18:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Improving this page (April)

I decided to read the article through yesterday and found it to be a mess. Information is repeated, sections contain mixes of unrelated info, section titles are inaccurate or meaningless, and there are long tracts of supposition and meandering commentary.

So I'm being bold and putting the like sentences together and inserting titles at each point where the subject changes. Doing this is making the duplicated content obvious, so I'm ending up reducing the number of sentences, and reading each section is revealing many vacuous sentences and unproveable suppositions, which I'm often deleting.

Help appreciated. Do complain if I head in a wrong direction. Gronky 12:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Access to source code condition

I'm reverting again the addition to the intro paragraph "beyond the requirement that the source code must be made available". Software distributed under the X11 licence has no such requirement but is free software. Source code must be available to each user for the software to fulfil the definition, but that requirement does not pass on to the recipient. You could get the software under the X11 licence and never have that requirement, or you could get the software under the GPL and only use and modify the software privately and thus also never have that requirement placed on you. Gronky 20:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right that free software doesn't have to be copylefted, and it can permit deriving non-free software from free software, however, free software as defined by the fsf is only free software if the source code is available. A derived work is non-free if the source code is unavailable. A different wording might make sense, to clarify that free software can be turned into non-free software, but the "access to the source code is a precondition for this" is a part of the fsf's definition. I do understand your point and how my phrasing could seem misleading, I'll try to reword it. 24.65.79.192 20:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You are explaining what is required of a person who wants to publish software as free software and you are then confusing this with what requirements are passed on to the recipient. In other words, you are confusing a requirement which software must meet in order to be free software as being a requirement which is placed on a recipient of the software. I've corrected this now by splitting the sentence into two sentences. ...but now the paragraph is talking about "source code" before the article reader knows what source code is, or why source code is needed, or what the normal situation is with regard to people having or not having source code. Sure, keep it in the intro, but the earliest place it can be mentioned is after a reader will understand what it means for source code to be required. For now, I haven't moved that sentence out of the first paragraph. Gronky 11:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the requirement that source code be published is the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph. So I've deleted the sentence in the 1st paragraph that I made by splitting the sentence which you augmented. Gronky 11:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Now the anon has changed the intro sentence to: "Free software, as defined by the Free Software Foundation, is software that can be used, copied, studied, modified and redistributed with little or no restriction, in part by making its source code (the human-readable form of software) available."

This embodies the same mistake again, the only change is that ambiguity has been introduced so that meaning, and thus the contradiction, will not be as clear to readers. The ambiguity was introduced by using the passive voice for the verb "making ... available". Now the reader doesn't know who has to make the source code available, so do I get those freedoms by me making the source available (like some barter system?) or do I get those freedoms by the distributor making the source available? When I resolved this ambiguity by splitting the sentence into two sentences and explicitly mentioning who the subject of each verb is, the contradiction was clear and couldn't stay. The contradiction is still there, and cannot stay. What is wrong with the requirements of source code being mentioned in the 2nd paragraph? Gronky 21:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Your question was answered in the edit summary. 24.65.79.192 17:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

As an example, imagine an article about cars begins saying. "A car, as defined by the automotive association, is wheels that roll you different places. The automotive association was founded to make wheels that roll available to everyone." and then, in the next paragraph, the article says "A number of parts are a car if it is wheels that roll attached to a chassis with a body, an engine, and a steering wheel." I think there's a similar logical issue with the way you want to phrase this article. It's essentially inaccurate, and in this case POV as it seems to be designed to present what sounds like a complete definition of free software, but that only describes the philanthropic aspect. Like saying "Communism is a movement to bring peace, order, and equality to all people of the world." and glossing over the whole men with guns regulating all private commerce thing. 24.65.79.192 17:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't follow your analogies. I can't see how they are analogous to this situation. Please try again to explain why you want source code mentioned in the first paragraph instead of the second? (Would it suffice to join those two paragraphs?) I can't follow you at all. Gronky 23:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You're stating "free software, as defined by the free software foundation, is" and then you're giving an incomplete and very philanthropic-sounding one-line definition, without the slightest hint that anything is missing, or that there is more to the free software foundation's definition. A sentence like "Free software, as defined by the free software foundation, is software that can be copied." is simply not accurate, because it's phrased as if it defines the entire meaning, which it doesn't, even if it is mentioning a part of the actual definition. 24.65.79.192 23:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I might have fixed the problem. What do you think of the new first para? Gronky 11:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It's more elaborate, but the same problem exists, that you're stating what sounds like a comprehensive summary in the first sentence, but you're omitting something that's laid out in clear language in the FSF's definition of free software, and that is that it is ONLY free software if there is access to the source code. I don't see why that fact is less pertinent than the intended abilities of users. 24.65.79.192 17:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Really, the FSF's own written definition is very concise and practical, I think it would be entirely compatible with readability and journalistic integrity to simply use it here, maybe having one preceding sentence saying The FSF defines free software as follows:. Part of why I suggest using their definition, verbatim, is that it would resolve any disagreement on whether their definition is being accurately represented. 24.65.79.192 17:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The current intro text is wrong. I will fix it again, but am just lacking time. The problem is that you are again confusing requirements and definitions. The text you have put there is like saying that blue cars have a requirement that someone must paint them blue. You wanted the intro to say that some free software comes with a requirement that to avail of some of the freedoms, you have a requirement to distribute the source code. I added that. What else is it that you want now? You are misrepresenting the FSF definition by changing "precondition" into "need". Gronky 08:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Binary Blobs and Bitkeeper

When I read the section about binary blobs, I was surprised it started suddenly discussing the Bitkeeper controversy. I kept reading, expecting it to be connected somehow to the issue of binary blobs, but there was no connection.

If this was for a lack of examples of binary blob controversies, might I suggest we write about graphics and wifi drivers, and the problems they can cause?

Bitkeeper could be made it's own subsection.

I'm purposely not being bold, as I don't want to unduly mess with an article that has obviously reached some stability. Baeksu 08:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right, and I think that might have been my mistake. That section title should be fixed - and it would be great if someone began a section on the binary blobs issue. Gronky 10:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge examples section into history

Lists, such as the Examples section of this article, are not very useful in articles. I was thinking about deleting it, but then I had the better idea of merging it into the history section. I'll give this a try. Gronky 12:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Logo image

I have noticed that the logo currently displayed is image:Floss_draft.png, while the corresponding image page says it has been superseded by image:Floss_draft.svg. Moreover, the Free software Portal and WikiProject Free Software tags at the top of this very talk page display the latter (although the WikiProject Free Software page does display the PNG). I even seem to remember that the SVG was displayed some time back (or at least another version of the picture, with the three logos in reverse order). Is there a reason for using the PNG (such as that it looks nicer)? — isilanes (talk|contribs) 18:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

When making the .svg, the artist made two mistakes. One is the position of the icons, and the other is the transparent background of the GNU head (it should be white) which makes that part of the image unseeable when displayed on some backgrounds. When someone gets around to fixing those, then the .svg will really supercede the .png. Got the time and expertise? Gronky 21:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Could this SVG qualify? If so, I'll fix the links to the PNG. — isilanes (talk|contribs) 11:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for doing that. The name is also good because finally we are out of the "draft" stage :-) Gronky 14:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

ReactOS?

I can't believe that ReactOS is mentioned on the same line as GNU/Linux, BSD, Darwin and OpenSolaris. I'm not even sure that ReactOS can boot on real hardware yet, and it certainly isn't a viable OS at this point. All the other non-OS free software that's listed is also stable/useable, so ReactOS sticks out horrendously. Removing. 129.128.210.68 19:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

GA request

I have looked at this article and I think it is a mature article with indept insights into the concept of Free Software. Is it fair to try to get this article up to GA level? Daimanta 19:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note, if I don't get a response I will go through with this. Regards, Daimanta 00:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Free software ideas and hardware

There's no coherent article on the application of free software philosophy, or free software community practices, to the field of electronics. There are two incoherent articles on related, but not clearly defined, topics (open source hardware and open source design), and there are many articles on specific hardware and technologies (OpenMoko, Simputer, XO-1 (laptop), FPGA, OpenSPARC, etc.). But there is no good article with a well defined topic and relevent content. If I'm wrong, can someone point me to the right article? Otherwise, do people think we could write an article on this? Any ideas/notes/comments about the title or scope? Gronky 18:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Naming section a mess

The new "Naming" section is riddled with weasel words and misconceptions.

The most prominent is the misconception that free software and open-source software are two different sets of things. This is not the case. The only software which is one but not the other is software under the defunct Apple Public Source License 1.0, the defunct Netscape Public License, or an unused licence written by RealNetworks (I can't remember the exact name right now).

Thus, the difference between the two sets, for all practical purposes, its null.

Further "open-source software" was not created to solve an ambiguity problem. It was created to stop FSF's "tub thumping" (in OSI's founding words) about freedom and ethics. Ambiguity was an issue too, but it was at most only half the reason.

Also, talking about conflicting aims of FSF and the open-source community is wrong. The free software community and the open-source community are not separate communities, it is one community containing many varieties of beliefs.

When continuing the development of this section, let's all put thought into exactly what we're writing. Gronky 07:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The Open Source software is almost ever free software, too. That's right. But the free software movement is totally different to the Open Source movement. The community of a specific free software project on the other hand is mostly mixed. --mms 21:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So, it used to be in my job description to advocate professionally for the position that mms puts forward. I could not have done that job without personally agreeing strongly that there is a fundamental difference between open source and software freedom (I prefer that term to free software, to avoid the English adjective's ambiguities). However, when I step back from my personal beliefs and look at the facts, I see this:

Some people argue that there is a fundamental philosophical difference between open source and free software.

Other people believe that the two are the same thing, and that their support of Open Source is to further the philosophy original promulgated by free software.

Gronky is correct, that, with a few almost irrelevant exceptions, they are talking about the same body of published software, and the difference of opinion is about philosophical views and what philosophy the phrases evoke, and whether the phrases actually do evoke a different philosophy.

I believe, therefore, it's Wikipedia's job to (a) document the difference of opinion and explain why various parts of the community feel the way they do, (b) distill the positions, and (c) link off to good references for further reading. I don't feel that the existing "Naming" section accomplishes this goal. Indeed, I think the best thing for this entry is to remove the "Naming" entry, and place a well cited section under "Controversies" that explain the issues and the arguments made on both sides. This will actually document the facts and give the best possible non-biased understand to readers. I am proposing to do just that unless folks disagree strongly. -- bkuhn 01:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A great site clarifying (proprietary) misconceptions about free software

The second link is, in my opinion, the most valuable. It explains how free software aids capitalism, makes software development cheaper, etc. SteveSims 04:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Permissive and copyleft licences section is incorrect.

Once you give someone software under a certain license they have all of the rights stated in that license permanently. If you release a new version, you can license _that_ newer version specifically under a different license, and you can even change the licenses under which you are distributing the same piece of software; but you cannot change the terms of a license you have already granted someone.

Releasing software to the public domain does not affect future software releases even if they are just later versions of the software or identical releases of the public domain software. It does not go "completely out of control"; it works the same as attribution and copyleft.68.190.73.116 00:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly possible for a license to be time-limited. The FSF and probably the OSI wouldn't like it, but it would still be a copyleft license if it required redistibution in source etc. As to public domain, you're both wrong and right. Wrong in that once given away, the software is "in the wild" and totally unrestricted. And right in that nothing prevents the original author from taking the same advantage of that lack of restriction that applies to all others. RossPatterson 01:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That is stretching the definition of both permissive and copyleft. Once you license software to a party under the MIT, BSD, MPL, or GPL licenses that have those rights forever. I do not know of any time-limited licenses that are considered copyleft or permissive, and if you wrote one, it would not be considered "free" by the Free Software Foundation or Debian.68.190.73.116 18:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. RossPatterson 23:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, like you weren't talking about the article, or never mind like I missed the point? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.174.220.69 (talk) 21:04, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

What statements need sources?

A {{moresources}} tag has been added to this article. Can someone (anyone - but especially the person who added the tag) say what sentences we need to find references for?

I like {{fact}} tags, so if someone adds a few, there is a good chance I will go dig up the required references. --Gronky 03:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There are too many refs needed for {fact} tags to be used. Please see and Wikipedia:When to cite and WP:LEAD for guidance. Johnfos 04:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well thanks for raising the issue. Is there anyone else out there who can give some ideas about what statements need references? --Gronky 08:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced

This article seems to be very pro Free software, with nothing to say about why it would not be used, or produced. I think the bias will need to be addressed before it could get a GA rating. Some of the disadvantages will have to be addressed. There probably need to be a paragraph also about freedom from patents—one example gets a mention, but there is a whole lot more to say. Graeme Bartlett 07:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

After reading your comment, I just noticed that there is no mention of the debate over where the freedom for everyone to look at the source code increases or decreases security. This should indeed be mentioned. Do you have any other examples of criticism/debate or reasons for not using free software? And yes, the patents info should be expanded. --Gronky 09:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I am a supporter of free software, nevertheless, it can be considered from the view of companies or individuals selling or giving away non free software. They may wish to derive an income from their intellectual work (or some one elses). There may be a desire to maintain control over a programmers creation. Some are possessive of their work and do not like to see others making changes! There is a mistaken view that releasing something to open source will get hundreds of programmers providing free support to improve the product. On some of the open source project sites you can see that many projects are started, but few have a good usable piece of software. (Of course this happens with proprietary or private special purpose software too). Graeme Bartlett 23:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The logic of your first point seems to imply that you think all articles about software, businesses, and sportspeople should say that their existence is potentially bad for, and unwanted by, their competitors? Seems to be too obvious to need an explicit statement.

For the second point, do you mean there should be a section on "Reasons why people might not release their software as free software"? Ok, that does sound good. Or maybe a section on "Motivations for and against releasing software as free software".

For the third point, about the "mistaken view", I completely agree. If the article repeats this mistaken view as a fact, then it should be fixed/removed. --Gronky 00:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Contradictory

Under the history section, it is mentioned; "It is important to note, however, that in many categories, free software for individual workstation or home users has only a fraction of the market share of their proprietary competitors."

However, in the next paragraph;

"The economic advantages of the free software model have been recognised by large corporations such as IBM, Red Hat, and Sun Microsystems."

Having only a fraction of the market share, sounds like a disadvantage, not an advantage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.122.12 (talk) 06:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

IBM, Red Hat, and Sun Microsystems - like the majority of the software industry - don't focus on software for individual workstation or home users. Chandon (talk) 08:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Move controversies to movement article?

It just hit me that the BitKeeper and binary blobs sections are not really about free software at all but are about the reactions and relationship between those issues and the supporters of the free software movement. I suggest moving those two sections to that other article and making the patents section a toplevel section itself - or patents and legal issues. --Gronky 09:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

Many sections have no references. Article has "pro-free software" POV. Rewrite the lead section. --Kaypoh 03:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the pointers, I'll get to work on them. --Gronky 19:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge in FSF's definition?

Someone's added tags suggesting that The Free Software Definition be merged into this article. I'm not sure it's a good idea. Although FSF's definition was the first, "free software" is no longer a uniquely FSF thing - but "The Free Software Definition" is. --Gronky 14:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If a company calls its “open” software “free software”, that doesn't make it free… but who defines that, if not FSF? --AVRS 21:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right, DFSG. Sorry, please ignore that comment, as I didn't read the article, and presumed that people might not follow the FS Definition link (as it would be the only one). --AVRS 21:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"open source" in the first para

It is a fact that many people call free software "open-source software". For this article to cover the topic completely, it is important to clarify that at the very start. It is standard Wikipedia convention to put common alternative names in the first line. Without this clarification, many people are coming to the conclusion that free software and open-source software are two different things - and then they imagine some arbitrary, wrong distinction. --Gronky 18:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Is* there not a diff between the two? --77.177.174.160 09:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope. "Free software" was coined in 1983. In 1998, some people wanted a "replacement label" [1] and they chose "open-source software". Some of these people then set up Open Source Initiative as "a marketing program for free software".[2] That's it, just a new nickname for the same thing.

OSI and FSF sometimes disagree about licences, but this doesn't mean they're talking about different things. Even if they used the same name, they would surely sometimes disagree about things. Also, the amount of disagreement is often over stated. So far, they've disagreed three times. FSF approved an old Netscape licence, and OSI disagreed, and OSI approved an old Apple licence and a RealNetworks licence, to which FSF disagreed. None of those three licences are even used for anything nowadays, so they're hardly a big deal. --Gronky 09:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference, a small but important difference. To not mention this difference is to pretend it doesn't exist, which is not good for a thorough encyclopedia article. However these two terms do include pretty much the same software, so I've kept that part and inserted a short phrase which notes the difference. 88.107.37.68 17:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Show me the important difference between the two categories of software. (Not the philosophies, not the personalities, not the organisations, not the political implications of either name - the software.) --Gronky 20:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That misses the point of this article, which is a WP:SUMMARY and thus is required to present the software alongside the philosophies, the personalities, the organisations and the political implications. It is true that most of the time when actually referring to software the terms are synonymous, but putting your suggested disambiguation in the first line of the article suggests considerably more parity than that. We must try to restrain ourselves from overly nitpicking in the first few sentences of articles lest the intros become unreadable. Chris Cunningham 13:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

But there is "more parity than that". There's either 100% parity ("OSS is just a replacement label") or there is 100%-minus-microscopic-gap (what FSF approves compared to what OSI approves). From the latter standpoint, the gap is just a defunct Netscape licence, a defunct Apple licence (neither used for anything), and a RealNetworks licence (possibly also currently used for nothing - or at most, one application). This gap can only be seen with a microscope. Telling people that the two things are not the same because of this crack is just misleading. --Gronky 19:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You have ignored my argument. This is a summary article; it must take into account the whole ecosystem, not just the software. If the two were synonymous, there wouldn't be such a kerfuffle regarding their differences. Chris Cunningham 11:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

re Gronky, the important difference is explained in that article I linked, which since has been removed. (here is is again) One example is OSI supported an old version of APSL whilst FSF did not, because it did not allow private modified versions (all modifications had to be made public). 88.107.20.250 12:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've read the linked article, but it's about the movement, not the software. As for your example, that licence isn't even used for anything. In software terms, it has an importance of zero. The only importance anyone could argue it has is as a precedent in OSI's approval process, but we don't know if OSI still stands by that decision (they might see it as a mistake in hindsight). So the importance is either zero, or we could speculate that it has a tiny procedural importance. --Gronky 19:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Afd: Free and open source software

FYI: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Free_and_open_source_software --Gronky 13:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Result of AfD was Keep

discuss a merger at Talk:Free_and_open_source_software#Merge_FS_.2B_OSS_here Lentower 01:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Giftware?

Giftware redirects here, but the article doesn't explain what it is. Please fix it. Shinobu (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"A Free Open-Source Software Resource" Relevance == Informative

"A Free Open-Source Software Resource", http://www.zentu.net is a site I pay money for, out of my own pocket, to inform people about the benefits of Free Open-Source Software. I have never been paid a penny for any of its content, nor accepted any donations. It is not link-spam or a money-making venture; it's useful, relevant, and informative, a collection of "weeded" and excellent resources and products from the Free Software World. People have a right to know these things. Thank you. - Shawnee :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiejade (talk • contribs) 00:00, Dezember 16, 2007 (UTC)

This article is about free software. If you had read it you would know that the free software ideology opposes the Open Source ideology. So your link can't comply with WP:WEB. --mms (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Free Software and Open-Source are not mutually exclusive. Their ideologies are not opposed; their ideologies are simply two halves of the same coin. Read anywhere on the Internet, and you will discover that. My link was no less obtrusive or "hurting" the integrity of this article about FREE software than is the link to the 'Free Software Magazine' below. Imagine it like my website and all of its free information can be free, even more free than the magazine, because the website doesn't kill the trees. Indiejade (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevetheless, you must admit the website is of marginal popularity, with a very low PageRank. Why not wait until it has at least PR=5? Pundit|utter 04:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Your website does not belong as an external link in Wikipedia articles. It adds nothing encyclopedic to them, it has very little content, and nothing significantly original. Please do not add it to any more articles. RossPatterson (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That is your opinion. Please do not edit or ask me to remove my contribution; yours is not any more or less "valuable" than mine. Please respect my contribution and leave it alone. Indiejade (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Please explain what content at zentu.net is significant, notable, or not available at better-known and well-established sites. I followed every link I could find and looked at every page and observed none. The site is nothing more than collection of links to various open source projects, and not a particularly good one at that. Until it becomes something significant, please refrain from adding it to articles on Wikipedia. RossPatterson (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The link is useful in that it 'organizes' the vague cloud of 'free open-source software' into categories that are informative and understandable to the average non-technical user. Free open-source software itself is nothing to people unless they understand what it does or can do for them. Free word-processors? A free spreadsheet program? Free graphic-design software? All of these are common examples of Free Open-Source Software that a lot of people would and could benefit from using, but that many don't understand how to get, though they may have heard about F/OSS. The link bridges the gap. The details are explained on the site. The website does collectively what each individual small open-source project cannot do on its own, and that is bring awareness to the concept of Free Open-Source Software as it relates to software that people would normally pay money for. I would be very interested in seeing how many of these removals of my link and revised edits are being done by people on Microsoft Operating Systems. . .

The average non-technical user is not interested in the politics, which is why this argument is extremely futile and hurting the cause. RossPatterson, your opinion that the site is "not a particularly good one at that" is irrelevant, not to mention rude, and unless you can point the way to a website that does what mine does better, I kindly ask that you please do not remove my contribution. -Shawnee (AKA) Indiejade (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article List of open source software packages, already referenced in this article, does a much better job of categorizing and enumerating packages than your website does. It also has both the advantage of being part of Wikipedia and of linking to the many package articles Wikipedia already contains. As a rule, Wikipedia prefers internal links to other articles over external links. RossPatterson (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Freedomware

I'm going to remove the bit on freedomware, which is supported by some blog references. There's not much on google, the top hit is a clothing company.[3] And there's not enough searches for trends.[4] --h2g2bob (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

free software = free of charge

Doesn't free software just mean "free of charge"? That's what I've thought for the last 10 years or so, but increasingly I'm coming across the redefinition of free software demonstrated by this page, where free software is defined to mean something else which seems more to do with ideaology than software.

To be a complete/useful article it really should cover both the intuitive meaning and the one about "freedom" that needs a whole article to explaing it! :-)

For me and most people I talk to, whether IT experts or not, free software is stuff like Adobe Reader that is free to download. Hope I'm not offending anyone by saying this, but this is the way language works, historical meanings aren't always the exclusive ones, and no one "owns" or "controls" language to say, "no, free software can only mean the thing we want it to".

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.169.63 (talk) 08:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This issue is covered in freeware, Gratis versus Libre and other articles linked from this one. But please feel free to improve the article, if you have referenced and verifiable material clarifying the distinction. Technobadger (talk) 09:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 222.152.169.63; the non-programming, general-public, software consumer has a different definition of "free software" than the one described in this article. Referring to the four freedoms listed here, it is any software with at least half of freedom 0 (the freedom-to-run half, not the for-any-purpose half), such as browser games that are free to play but cannot be copied for friends and have protected source code. Since WP is for a general audience, this definition should at least be included or disambiguated. -- Another Stickler (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This was resolved over a week ago. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

That "resolves" nothing. It still suggests that software that is free is not the same as "free software". That's only true in a small, select group of nerds and not to the wider world (a bit like how ten nerds say that malicious breakers-in are not "hackers" but "crackers", despite all etymological evidence; see Wiktionary). 86.131.89.40 (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Free software that is free is not the same as free software, as stated by this article and many other sources of information. The small select group of nerds is a fallacy. There are many other people in the world who understand the difference, and there is a bigger number of people who know there is a difference. Perhaps when free software was less mainstream, this was true, but not anymore. Alpv (talk) 05:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Free Software versus Open Source

Open Source and Free Software are _not_ the same. Can someone help to clarify that within the article ? - DCEvoCE (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The difference is philosophical. The FSF puts forward a moral argument that all software should be free as a basic human right, whereas the OSI treats it as a business model - in that offering the source code for free confers a competitive advantage and acts as a platform for selling support and other services.

Unless you hold strong moral views, there is really no practical difference as a developer or a user, both movements use largely the same licenses which really is all that matters for most people.

Referring back to the article. I personally am not happy with the following text ...

Free software is distinct from "freeware" and "open-source software"; both are proprietary software made available free of charge. ... Open-source software can be studied and modified but only redistributed as patches if the license requires it.

I don't agree that merely because OSI recognises licenses that require redistribution of modifications as patches, this justifies calling open-source "proprietary software", in fact this smells of bias to me.

Eclecticdave (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. That claim might be true of some licenses claiming to be "OSS" (a very hazily defined term), but certainly not true of all. However, you might correctly substitute the term "shared source" for "OSS" in that passage. Technobadger (talk) 09:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, but IMHO "shared source" is a fairly narrowly defined term compared to the other two. I would be inclined to simply strike the reference to OSS in this context, but keep the comparison to freeware as this is a useful and important distinction.

Eclecticdave (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed again. Will strike the reference now, and if the author can clarify (and reference) their point to illustrate something I'm missing, then it can be restored. Technobadger (talk) 08:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Great! I've taken the liberty of making a further modification to remove the reference to Open-Source entirely from this text. I would like to reintroduce the difference between Free Software and Open Source, correctly stating the difference as per my first paragraph above, but I haven't had time to look for a citation yet.

Eclecticdave (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just re-added "open-source software" to the list of terms that were created to replace the term "free software". I'm not completely sure which reference to "open-source software" you folk are discussing, but I guess it's unlikely that anyone is questioning that "open-source software" was announced as a replacement label for "free software", so I guess I'm not trampling your discussion. --Gronky (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Free software is distinct from "freeware" and "open-source software"; both are proprietary software made available free of charge. ... Open-source software can be studied and modified but only redistributed as patches if the license requires it. - I wasn't happy with that either, that's why I asked for help. I think it would be important to highlight the difference between Open Source and Free Software. DCEvoCE (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

To user Gal Buki: You have modified the Free software article, as shown in the reference below. Your argument was that "open source is not always free as in freedom as it not always grants the four freedoms as mentioned in definition". Are you really sure? I have been searching to define the difference, and I still am not satisfied with it. There are quotes from Richard M Stallman (rms) that say that free software (software, not the idea) is essentially the same as open source software, just that the idea behind the name isn't (see the top quote here). So I'm not sure you're right. Would you please elaborate? --Paxcoder (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Reference: The edit

To user Paxcoder:You are right. I have changed the sentence. The edit--torusJKL (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: Seems you weren't far off. The quote from rms, although true for most cases (especially since most of that which people call "open source" is free software under GPL), has it's exceptions. One of them is software released under NASA Open Source Agreement, a license that is officially open source (OSI approved), while it doesn't meet the Debian Free Software Guidelines, and is called non-free by FSF. However, license's restriction itself isn't explicitly addressed in four freedoms, only vaguely in freedom 3 perhaps. So, I'm not sure what to do. Especially since the part of the Free Software article we were talking about is gone now. --Paxcoder (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Political and ethical issues

Is it worth considering adding some discussion about the political and ethical aspects of free software? I've observed resistance when it has been compared to Fair Trade, while in many ways the organisation of the development teams reflects anarcho-syndicalist approaches. This is not reflected in the article.

RichardRothwell (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Attention from an expert

Please someone try to clearly state the difference between Free Software and Open source software in the lead of both articles. Thank you!--Kozuch (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

They're the same thing, there's just two names. I'll see if I can clarify this in the intro. --Gronky (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Is that an improvement? --Gronky (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your edits! However, if they are the same, why isnt there only one article??? That is actually what I was confused about.--Kozuch (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I would love to merge open-source software into this article, but there are some people who strongly disagree. A lot of people (incorrectly) think that the topics are different, and some people think that Wikipedia should rename free software as "open source" (because the "open source" marketing campaign has been so successful). There are probably also people who object to Wikipedia using the original name (free software is the original name) just because they don't like Richard Stallman.

As someone suggested, the author of the definition of Free Software is defined by FSF - actually, Stallman, being the founder. And they disagree with it being the same as Open Source Software. I have been researching (many people, like me, are wondering) what exactly is the difference. I have decided to share my conclusion with you, although the difference is somewhat vague, in my opinion. As the movie "Revolution OS" suggests, the term Open Source was made to replace "Free Software" in business environments (thus avoiding gratis/libre confusion). Weather phrase "free as in freedom, not free as in beer" could settle that as Stallman says, is debatable, but the fact remains that Free Software Foundation and Open Source Movement are different organizations, with different goals. Stallman likes to says the main difference is that FSF is dedicated to the community (activism agains DRM, patents etc.) while OSM is focused to economic benefits of the software licensed under FLOSS licenses (mostly GPL). An example might be Mozilla Firefox, developed by few who get payed and decide weather to accept the changes or not, and the community that contributes, but doesn't receive its share.

If anyone can make a clearer distinction, or contribute to the subject in any way, please do, and we might make a new section that will be beneficial.--Paxcoder (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll do my best to make this a little better, but no promises....MarkTraceur (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Done, feel free to edit it a little bit, but it seemed pretty clear already to me. MarkTraceur (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I am a bit confused here, the signature here on the talk page say the request was made 2008, but the request on the article say 2012. Is the issue still the lead, or is there a new request about something else? Belorn (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The good news is that two years ago there were nine different articles, but I've managed to get that down to three: free software, open-source software, and alternative terms for free software. Actually, to be precise, there is currently a fourth article (Free and Open Source Software), but it is just the pet project of one very persistent editor - no one contributes to it and it will probably be deleted in a few months.

So, yes, it is a problem, and I hope it will be solved, but I don't expect it to be solved this year. In the mean time, three articles is much better than nine. --Gronky (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

<pedant>"Are much better, surely? :-)</pedant> -- 92.40.185.131 (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

He obviously left out "having", merely implying it. This accounts for the singular. :P tijmz (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Examples of free software

firefox? 77.105.202.189 (talk) 02:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think FF may be open-source rather than freeware. Mind you, I'm not certain of the exact difference. -- 92.40.185.131 (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Firefox is very much Free Software. It is open source, too.

If this article doesn't explain well enough the differences between the terms free software, freeware and open source, then it should be improved. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the difference is pretty relative. Mozilla's release as free software is largely credited to the people behind the nascent Open Source Initiative, and the current Firefox marketroids have decided to use the meaningless "organic software" to further muddle things. Most people except the most ardent FSF weenies agree with the general principle that Firefox is free software though. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The trademark on the name "Firefox" and the copyright on the icons are too restrictive for Debian Free Software guidelines, but the code is GPL, hence it's free software. And Firefox is listed in FSF's Free Software Directory, too. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

I would like to replace Ubuntu (which ships proprietary software on its install mediums) with Debian GNU/Linux as an (better) example of free software. If there are any objections, please state them here. Thank you. --Paxcoder (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've made the changes. If this is the first time you're seeing this, please refrain from reverting until you discuss your reasons here. --Paxcoder (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither Ubuntu nor Debian consist of entirely free software as defined by the FSF; this is why the FSF doesn't list either of them on this page and why the gNewSense project was started. See here and here for more info. 207.65.109.10 (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Debian is in transition to remove the last bit of non-free software from the distro (firmware for graphics cards) - the blobs are a part of the kernel, and are now being manually taken out. This has happened with unstable version, but has yet to come to testing and stable. Until it does, feel free to include Gnewsense in its stead in this article [I think I didn't know the above at the time I put Debian instead of Ubuntu]. Noteworthy however is that FSF doesn't consider this to be Debian project's primary "sin", rather - it is the fact that they *host* (other) non-free software in special repositories (hardly a matter that makes a distro non-free). But unlike Ubuntu, they don't ship it on their mediums. Instead, it must be manually included in sources to pull software from. --Paxcoder (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your argument, however, since Ubuntu is a very recognizable name, it should still be there (perhaps as an example with mostly free software). Alpv (talk) 05:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I don't know. Debian isn't that obscure either though. --Paxcoder (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Editor of Dr. Dobb's

This article says that Richard Stallman was an "editor of the computer hobbyist magazine Dr. Dobb's Journal" and it is marked as "citation needed".

I believe that an old issue of the journal with Stallman's name in the staff list would be a good enough citation, but i don't have a copy myself.

Does anyone have access to such a thing?

Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I used to have lots of issues from those days, but alas, not any more. I don't recall Stallman ever being an editor, although of course the GNU Manifesto was published in the March 1985 issue and I was well aware of him at the time. I strongly doubt the claim. I can't find any support for it on the web, and I can find plenty of non-supporting references - places where it should have been mentioned but isn't. Among the strongest non-supporting references are:

Famous Computer Science professor Nelson Beebe's 1980-1989 Dr. Dobb's bibliography, which lists only one article by Stallman - the March 1985 GNU Manifesto item. It includes the editorials, which have traditionally been written by the then-current editor (e.g., Michael Swaine in the case of the March 1985 issue).
Dr. Dobb's list of articles by author (archived at the Internet Archive), in part the basis of Beebe's bibliography, which lists just the March 1985 article for Stallman. The same list shows lots of Swaine's editorials.
A Stallman interview from the July 1986 issue of Byte, that mentions Dr. Dobb's but not that relationship.
A letter from Stallman to the editor in Dr. Dobb's from June somewhere between 1998 and 2001, where Stallman reminds the editor that Dr. Dobb's published the GNU Manfesto in 1985, but does not mention Stallman being a former editor.
An August 2001 editorial by Jon Erickson about Microsoft and the GPL which mentions Stallman repeatedly without referring to him as a former editor.

I'm going to remove the claim. Anyone who can find support for it is free to re-add it with a citation. RossPatterson (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Jon Erickson, Editor-in-Chief of Dr. Dobb's Journal for over 20 years, says to me today in private email, "No, that's wrong. DDJ published the Gnu Manifesto which he wrote, but he was never a DDJ editor." JackWoehr (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyright changes

"In 1980 copyright law was extended to computer programs."

in which countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.152.167 (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

well. In USA. It was a first country in the world to extend copyright to computer programs. In other countries programs was copyrighted during 1980s-1990s. For example around 1986 in West Germany, 1988 - in Britain, 1992 - in Russia. Lqp (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC).

That's not true at all. In the UK, for example, computer games were sold under copyright in the early 1980s (and probably before that!); otherwise anyone could have copied them! 86.131.89.40 (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about UK copyright law, but it's conceivable (even likely) that video games were protected by copyright on account of their other creative content--sprites, images and sounds, etc. In the US, Apple v. Franklin was one of the first cases to establish code as itself being copyrightable. There's a fine but important difference. S. Ugarte (talk) 02:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing FSF opinion presented as fact

I've been asked to "discus" removing this paragraph from the intro. As it is evidently prescriptive, and directly advances the Free Software Foundation's point of view, it is unbefitting of the article lede. I reckon this is already covered sufficiently by the article, so should be removed entirely. At the very least, it should be removed from the lede, placed in the article body, and reworded so that it clearly indicates that it is the position of one party and not a normative statement. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I question your opinion, because of two things: first being the fact that people are curious about the difference between OS and FS (which is evident from this discussion page) and it is only touched upon in "Naming" section. The other fact is that you do not seem interested in removing the explanation of the difference between FS and freeware software from the very same introduction. My opinion is that it should not be removed from the article - moving to Naming, or incorporating it there (and optional renaming "Naming" to "FS vs OS") is much better idea. And that should also happen only if we decide to move both things (OS and freeware) from intro. But I do agree the intro is too big, still removing stuff isn't the answer. But the info should be moved from it, and the whole intro rewritten from scratch (IMHO). --Paxcoder (talk) 12:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The different between free software and open source is complicated and the FSF has been contradictory on it. Hoever, that's not what the section I removed wax - it was an admonition not to use the term "open source", a purely political point. The difference between "free software" and "freeware" is (a) well-documented by secondary sources and (b) phraseable in a way which does not consist of advocacy. It's an entirely different kettle of fish. Anyway, I'll move the section into the article body and precede it with "the FSF says" to resolve this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with removing that paragraph. The article should give advice. Gronky (talk) 02:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems like you set your mind to it. But leave it intact (otherwise I'll edit it), because "free software" is a term from FSF, so FSF (more precisely, GNU) defines it. If they say it should not be called open source because of the philosophy behind it, it shouldn't. It's not merely someone's opinion, it's what the author says. You don't see me going to the Open source page writing "open source is somewhat erroneous, although well spread name for free software", or "open source initiative says". --Paxcoder (talk) 11:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between describing how the terms "free software" and "open source" came about and contrasting them with one another, and giving instructions to the reader based on advice from a source with an overt interest in the outcome. It's a matter of style. Anyway, I've removed the paragraph. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Next steps that I predict are: Merging Free Software to FOSS, Merging FOSS with Open source, generalizing Open source, renaming it to just "Open" (hw/sw).

These are small steps, and we can't object to either one of them. There really is not good objection. I certainly can't think of one. Too bad. --Paxcoder (talk) 13:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

A merge involving at least some of those steps has been a long-term goal of mine, but until now it's been blocked by editors who believe that the implied equivalence which merging would impart on the terms would be inappropriate. It'll get brought back up again at some point, hopefully with a bit more support. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I sympathize —Paxcoder (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

bias in support of FLOSS definition

The placement of the FSF/FLOSS definition of "free software" under this heading, with no indication that other definitions exist is in direct conflict with encyclopedic standards, wikipedia's explicit standards, and common practice on wikipedia.

The fact is that by far the most common usage of the phrase "free software" and the adjective "free" as applied to software is in reference to being authorized to download and/or use software without paying. A simple search on any search engine overwhelmingly supports this fact.

If applicable standards and rules are to be applied here, this article should be titled something like "Free Software (FLOSS)" and a new page with a concise clarification and references to several definitions should be placed under the title "Free Software."

The fact that free software as in software at no cost is documented elsewhere is really not the issue here. The point is about what wikipedia reports when one says "hey, what is free software?" and currently the response is unbalanced and POV in favor of the FLOSS definition. 76.64.151.235 (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That freeware may also be known as "free software" is true, but the Manual of Style is pretty clear on the idea that articles should be based on one subject, that article titles are not "official" in any way and that hatnotes should be used to disambiguate rather than attempting to write articles by picking phrases and filling the pages linked to such with detail on every topic that might be covered. I've added a hatnote to differentiate the article from freeware. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a start. Though, the FLOSS definition remains over-represented, given that common practice in society, and therefore the standing primary definition, is other than what this article documents. Also, the natural combination of "free" as in price and "software" refers to more than "freeware." Conventionally, freeware refers to software where the copyright holder imposes no restrictions on use or distribution of the software, and where the software isn't a handicapped version of some paid software. Freeware sometimes includes source code, people now sometimes refer to that as OSS and/or FLOSS. Also, there's shareware, trialware, adware, nagware, spyware, software that is freeware but is somehow tied to some paid service, and of course, "free software downloads" which is a deceptive phrase that's becoming increasingly common, used in reference to the fact that a fee isn't charged for downloading shareware. So anyway, non-FLOSS use of the phrase "free software" is extensive and complicated, far exceeding FLOSS usage, far pre-dating FLOSS usage, and by encyclopedic and wikipedia standards, it really warrants more significant placement and coverage than the FLOSS definition. 70.50.179.78 (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Historically "free software" has only referred to libre software. It is an unfortunate fact that despite having over a billion words, English overloads words with multiple meanings, that serve only to confuse. In this instance, people forget that free originally referred to libre, and gratis was only an afterthought. Need I also point out that most FLOSS is available gratis? jonathon (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The opposite of everything you said is true. Software existed, was sometimes sold at a cost, or alternatively was sometimes given away for free, and described as "free," extensively, long before Richard Stallman conceived of GNU and decided to make "free software" a slogan. Consider, for example, that GNU was a revolt against existing operating systems of the day that were partially free as in price, but for which source code wasn't made available. In fact, the concept of saying "free" as in "freedom" is a revolt against people calling software "free" when, without the source code, severe limitations existed. Also, all FLOSS is required to be made available at no cost, and if it's sold on printed materials, the price has to be minimal. You might want to read the GPL and study the history of GNU, you seem to have some serious misconceptions. 70.50.179.78 (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Prior to circa 1975, software and hardware were always bundled together. Source code was included, because it was always customized for the specific organization that purchased the hardware. Between 1975, and 1980, software houses for mainframes, and midframes were viable businesses, _if_ they did not have to supply source code. With the initial micro-computers, the commercial vendors uniformly decided not to provide source code. By 1983,it was clear that customizing source code would no longer be a vendor provided option ---even if the purchasing organization was willing to pay for it. Nobody, but nobody described software as "free" prior to 1980. It wasn't until the rise of shareware, that the term "free" was first used to describe software that was distributed gratis. BTW, the operating systems back then were anything but gratis. UCSD had a major problem with the IRS, because it earned so much money for licenses for P-System.(For all practical purposes,the IRS bears sole responsibility in the demise of P-System. Had it not inflicted its desire to destroy all and sundry, computing today would be vastly different.)jonathon (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Prior to circa 1975, software and hardware were always bundled together. - It sounds like you're talking about operating systems, and even then, your claim is false. PDP and other architectures were generally based on operating systems that would now be referred to as open source, there were numerous choices available for a machine's operating system, and large "hacker" communities existed that edited and shared operating system modifications and addons, normally in binary form, but often with source code available. Charging money for software was already a well established practice, but a lot of software was available for free, and described as such. People had no reason to work around normal use of the word "free," as the "free software movement" didn't exist at that time. So your claims Nobody, but nobody described software as "free" prior to 1980. It wasn't until the rise of shareware, that the term "free" was first used to describe software that was distributed gratis. are simply false. Also, you said BTW, the operating systems back then were anything but gratis. Initially, most operating systems and addons were available for free, but yes, paid alternatives eventually came along, which is why I said that operating systems were partially free, meaning some were, some weren't, some combinations involved components that had a cost, and components that didn't. 70.50.135.89 (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

DEC's PDP systems were not generally based on libre or gratis operating systems in those days. PDP-10s typically ran TENEX or TOPS-10, and 11s usually ran RSTS, RSX-11, or RT-11, although some ran AT&T Unix. Outside the DEC ecosphere, the choices were even fewer, because most university Computer Science programs were DEC sites, and only a few non-academic sites created their own OSes - GECOS and GM-NAA I/O were already history by 1975. There were so few operating systems that were not supplied by the equipment manufacturer or other for-a-fee providers that we not only didn't call them "free" (as in gratis or libre), we just called them by name. RossPatterson (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Your assertion conflicts with jonathon's assertion that early era operating systems were both free as in price and as in having available source code which could be modified and used freely. Anyway, you seem to assert that at that time (well before Richard Stallman coined the FLOSS term "free software"), some software had a monetary price, and some software didn't. So are you saying that people never discussed software prices? or that people did, but for some reason they never used the word "free" to describe software that was available for free? 70.50.135.89 (talk) 02:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Ross' assertion doesn't conflict with mine. My assertion is that hardware and software were a single line item. Sometime around 1970,hardware and software became separate line items. Nonetheless they were still bundled together when one purchased a system. (I'll also point out that there was a market in both used hardware,and software. PHB's debating whether to spend US%500,00 for a used system, and then how much the reprogramming would cost, as compared to the US$1,000,000 that a new system would cost, that included the required reprogramming. Software costs were discussed in terms of dollars per line. jonathon (talk) 03:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

So are you saying that for software that wouldn't cost anything, for instance because it had already been purchased, or it didn't need to be purchased, or some other reason, the word "free" was never used? for instance, nobody would ever say something like "that company offers free software, the other choice is to pay a fortune" ? 70.50.135.89 (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Your options were "bundle a", "bundle b", or if one was lucky, a used software package for your hardware that might cost less than either "option a" or "option b". Your option was choosing how much of a fortune one would pay. A used package for US$500,00, was either an absolute steal, or a great bargain. jonathon (talk) 05:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

There was plenty of free software in various forms. For instance, [5] is an article written by Richard Stallman. I think he somewhat idealizes the scene of the time, minimizing the fact that much source was withheld and that money was charged in many cases, but the article describes the "hacker" community that shared and used a lot of software at no cost. 70.50.135.89 (talk) 05:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to point out that you clearly acknowledge that operating systems went from being available at no cost to often being paid for, prior to conception of "free software" as a FLOSS term, so how do you think that people referred to operating systems that didn't have a monetary cost, if not to say that they were free? 70.50.135.89 (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you understand what the phrase anything but gratis means? Your comment implies otherwise.jonathon (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You said "Prior to circa 1975, software and hardware were always bundled together. Source code was included". So by implication, prior to Richard Stallman's establishment of his "free software" doctrine in 1983 (timeline according to this article's current form), both for-free and for-money software had been available. My point is that in that pre-GNU climate, descriptive language was frequently used, quite necessarily, to refer to the cost of software. Do you really think people never used the word "free" to refer to the options that didn't cost money? 70.50.135.89 (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Bundled means sold as one package. That package included the cost of the programming. With software being billed at on the number of lines in the source code, suggesting that a salesperson would call it free is utterly absurd. When software became a separate line item, vendors started to exclude source code with the application. (More precisely, they limited the distribution of the source code.)jonathon (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not the source code was available is moot, the point is that there was a lot of software at no cost, and a lot of paid software, long before GNU was conceived. That point seems to have been conceded, the only question is whether people used the adjective "free" to describe software that could be used without paying. I think it should be obvious that it's natural and default use of the english language, just as the ever growing contemporary non-FLOSS use of the term isn't some snowball effect, it's largely a matter of unrelated parties simply using common descriptive language in relation to the subject of the monetary cost of software. In fact, the word "free" is used constantly in business. Free drinks. Free popcorn. Free cd changer. Free dvd rentals. To suggest that, in a climate where a multitude of software choices were available, some representing added cost, and some not, people wouldn't be using the adjective "free" in the sense of cost, is just silly and unrealistic. Also, as I said, a lot of very early software was completely free in all senses, there were extensive "hacker" communities, and there were both paid and for-free operating systems. 70.50.135.89 (talk) 04:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Stallman's concern has always been about source code availability, and the ability to share modifications of source code with other users. The free always referred to sharing source code modifications to those who had a license to use the software. jonathon (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I never claimed that RMS's intended meaning has changed, I said that other usages existed before RMS started using the slogan, and that they always have been and still are far more widely used than his. 70.50.135.89 (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no requiriment that FLOSS be distributed gratis, or even at cost. That misconception comes from a failure on the part of people to comprehend the difference between source code and binary distribution, when reading the GNU GPL. (Source code has to be distributed at, or below the cost of the materials that it is provided in.) There is no prohibition in any FLOSS license in selling binaries at any price --- indeed the inclusion of such a clause would violate the four fundamental freedoms. This, is why it is perfectly legal to sell Debian Linux for US$1,000,000 if one can find somebody who is idiotic enough to do so. (Several years ago, an e-Bay vendor --- who may still be in business there --- listed OOo for US$5,000, and reported that they did have a single sale at that price.) jonathon (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Correction, there is a requirement for FLOSS to be available at no cost, in the sense that a copyright holder can not demand a fee before the source code is made available and/or before the user is permitted to use and distribute the software. You can accept voluntary payment for something you're also offering for free, but you do have to offer it for free as well, in the case of FLOSS. So what I said (all FLOSS is required to be made available at no cost) is accurate. 70.50.135.89 (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing in the GNU GPL, or any other FLOSS license that requires the binary to be distributed gratis, or for no more than the cost of the media it is distributed on. All the GNU GPL prohibits, is charging more for the source code than the cost of the media that it is distributed on. There is nothing prohibiting a vendor from selling the binary for US$50^10,and requiring an additional fee, that is not more than the cost of the media, for the source code. The major reason vendors don't follow that practice, is because ten seconds after the first person shells out the money, the second person will be legally downloading it from The Pirate Bay. jonathon (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It has to be possible for the user to acquire the binaries at no cost. That is, it has to be possible for the user to compile identical binaries. 70.50.135.89 (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Has to be? Not according to the GNU GPL, or any other license. If no one wants to distribute source code for gratis, and no one want to distribute compiled binaries for gratis, then gratis distribution won't occur.jonathon (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You're mistaken, the GPL asserts that if you distribute binaries, you also have to ensure that the source code is available, and that is the major difference between FLOSS and OSS, according to RMS and the FSF. 70.50.135.89 (talk) 04:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Heck, for years the FSF itself sold free software - in fact, it was the easiest way to get Emacs, Bison, and a few others in the mid-1980s. RossPatterson (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you reread the GNU GPL for the first time, before you make more statements that are demonstrably false, and display your ignorance about that which you purport to know something about. jonathon (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Current opening sentence means GPLv3 isn't "free software"

The current opening paragraph states "Free software or software libre is software that can be used, studied, and modified without restriction, and which can be copied and redistributed in modified or unmodified form either without restriction, or with minimal restrictions only to ensure that further recipients can also do these things" - but GPLv3 also has additional restrictions vis-a-vis hardware in the TiVoisation clause. I suggest this is rephrased to be clearer -93.96.212.203 (talk) 23:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

the GPL was never - and never will be free —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.204.139 (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Proprietary software article compatibility

Citation: "The antonym of free software is proprietary software..." The current wording of the Proprietary software article does not support this statement. Any idea what can be done about it?

Peta 77.104.243.33 (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Renaming Category

The related Category:Free software was nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming on February 1, 2009. The result of the discussion was: keep current name.

I feel that "free" is ambiguous, so I would prefer "freely licensed" in the category name instead. Taemyr (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Umm... No? This is its name, you're gonna have to deal with it :-P --Paxcoder (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Taemyr. Not all free software is licensed. Software whose source code is in the public domain is free software and has no licence. So the change you suggest would make Wikipedia inaccurate. In Wikipedia, the defintion of "free" for software is addressed by having a full description in the free software article. --Gronky (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

distinction between Freeware and Free Software in lead

An anon editor (87.196.223.9) deleted the paragraph explaining the difference between freeware and free software from the lead[6]. I've restored the paragraph since the distinction is further explained and referenced in the body of the article. Per WP:LEADCITE, if there is consensus to add a citation to that statement in the lead, then we should do so. --Hamitr (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Page Title does not fit logically

Freeware's definition is a subset of Free Software (non-FSF definition) as is FSF Free Software. So I feel this page should be called Free Software(FSF) at the least. It just makes sense as both FSF's Free Software and freeware are free by definition. Both FSF's free software and freeware belong to a larger group of software simply called free software. Keeping it in its current condition is clearly POV. Ismouton (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The #bias in support of FLOSS definition section above already contains the rationale for this. That software exists which is free does not indicate that the most common use for the term "free software" is to refer to freeware. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

#Renaming Category also talks about this. The majority of this page does. If you have browsed through it, Ismouton, can you now remove POV, please? --Paxcoder (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that people did (and do) make money from free software albeit (mostly?) by nontraditional means - ie selling the mediums like in case of Emacs and Debian, providing a sponsored feature like in case of Mozilla Firefox(google search), donations for new features Mediawiki, etc. That makes it clear that what we call 'free software' is not a subset of 'gratis software'. This is further supported by the fact that most licenses, as well as the most popular one, GPL do not prevent commercial use of free software nor was it its intention.

Leaving POV tag does hurt credibility of the article.The rest of your arguments, have already been discussed, so please remove the POV yourself if you have nothing further to add. Thank you. --Paxcoder (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree - this page should be replaced with a disambig page, with the existing content moved to a separate page referring to the FSF's definition of "free software". Nuwewsco (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Freeware is not proprietary by definition

This article says that freeware is "proprietary software", but that is unsourced, and few or no reliable sources say freeware=proprietary (Even the FSF, a non-neutral, pro "free software, as in freedom" source, says Today it has no particular agreed-on definition. In fact, I found sources the say the exact opposite of what the article says: Using the word "Freeware" to refer to "open source"/"libre"/"gratis" software, "Because it MAY be copyrighted...", It is typically distributed without its source code (so it means it can sometimes be distributed with the source code!) (they might not be good sources, but I don't have to prove anything, the people that want to say freeware=proprietary are the ones that need to prove that). If you want to say that freeware=gratis software, fine by me. But please don't say freeware=proprietary software... I think that should be removed from the article. Jerebin (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't tell you what kind of a problem you just brought up. It's quite bad. The bottom point of it is: There's no clear definition of freeware. It's hard to say what needs to be gratis to constitute a freeware(click to see the loose definition). License? Distribution? If only the former, then free software just might be a subset of freeware - to be perfectly honest (I just realized that). It guarantees unlimited ability to copy. If the latter (or other things) as well, it rules out free software because free software doesn't forbid earning money on services (programming, implementing, distributing etc). It's really hard to say. I would like to say there is at least some free software that is freeware, but there's always possibility to charge for it some other way than selling the license. So I really don't know. I'm 100% behind the 'citation needed' tho. But I think this one will be a 'won't fix'. --Paxcoder (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted to address Jerebin's concerns. I can't say that I'm satisfied with my wording, but I think the sources are pretty solid. I'll see if I can come back later and add some mention of how proprietary software fits in.[7][8][9]

Of course, we should also work on explaining the distinction between free software and freeware a bit more in the body of the article and then move the cites out of the lead. Cheers. --Hamitr (talk) 03:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I admit this is a very complicated issue, and I consider myself happy with the current wording, in my opinion, the main issue has been solved (saying freeware=propietary software). Thanks people! Jerebin (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Preventing hardware modifications

The intro contains the text "and to prevent consumer-facing hardware manufacturers from preventing user modifications to their hardware." I find this text confusing and I've been in the industry for over 20 years. Can someone please either remove this text or clarify what it's talking about?

Let me assume that we're talking about RMS's original concern: the MIT printer whose driver he could not extend (though this could also be read to refer to the recent locked-in platform issues surrounding, e.g., TiVo or the binary-only driver modules for Linux). In that case, it was not modifications to hardware that were being prevented at all. It was, in fact, modifications to software that shipped with the hardware. Either way, I think it's too complex a side-topic to introduce in the first paragraph, as it requires significant understanding of the issues involved. -Miskaton (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

Although anonymous users do oftentimes validly contribute to this article, most of IP-identified users' edits are vandalism, and it is dominating the history page (eg. most recent is only yesterday). So, perhaps we should consider protecting the page with semi protection. I'm sure you don't like the sound of it (I don't either), but the fact is it would solve our problems. And it could be removed after the guy(s?) editing it grow up. Speak your mind. --Paxcoder (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Commercial viability

I think this article should mention that Free software (as in freedom) projects have many problems generating revenue and that "Free software" development is in most cases not profitable by itself... SF007 (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --Paxcoder (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's pretty covered. The only thing is that it isn't explicitly said it's hard to make money, but it does say the proprietary model (ie selling licenses) isn't compatible. You're free to edit though. --Paxcoder (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know, the problem is that I don't really know how to put that... SF007 (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You asked for a reply, but I don't know. --Paxcoder (talk) 11:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Red Hat has done quite well in recent years, so it can be done. There are many viable businesses built around free software. If they are not making as much profit as certain non-free software companies, the reasons are not necessarily that building a company around libre software is inherently not profitable. - K (talk) 15:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

help fix my link

I can't fathom why, but I can't seem to get "free software" to be a link. Here's my edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_software&diff=301587724&oldid=300835716

Please fix, and delete this comment/section. Thanks, - JasonWoof (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Self links simply appear in bold, instead of as a link. I removed the non-working link for now, as I'm not sure how to fulfill your original intent. If you post back here, I'm sure we can help. Pslide (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Adding qualifier to Naming

The Naming section is a statement of the FSF's opinion about open source software. They assert that a) the term refers only to technical means of software development and b) that it was a term disseminated by a marketing campaign. I won't argue either point (not even sure which side I'd be on), but rather point out that they have been widely argued in the past, and while the FSF is welcome to that opinion, it should be noted here that it is such. -Miskaton (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

According to Eric S. Raymond, (B) is a fact (see movie: Revolution OS). (A) is arguable, but mentioned as something stated in FSF's document, and not a fact. So, I see no reason for dispute. --Paxcoder (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Free plumbing ?

Can someone quickly explain where do people who write software for free get other services free, like plumbing, food, housing etc? I'm for having the code open source but can someone explain how is free software not a race to the bottom, a self-centric pursuit ultimately at expense of others (people starting to assume software is worth nothing). There may be short term benefits for greedy corporations but we are talking about devaluing work here and the amount of intelligent people wanting to slave away for dimes ... well were those people very intelligent in the first place or did they have ulterior motive such as retaliation against company x for being so damned rich and evil in their business practises? x=most large business, having taken advantage of legal loopholes that might be legal but ethically questionable to advance their position in the market.

If the idea is to get paid for support, is there not a conflict of interest to write the free software (with paid support) in a way that makes having support incidents more likely? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.172.94 (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

As a former working professional software product developer, who needed to get paid in order to be able to eat, and this only happened because users liked the products enough to pay for them, I have some sympathy with the earlier poster's concerns. Does anyone know if anything has been published concerning opinions about the potential social downsides of free as in 'free beer' software? If it exists, such material discussing dissenting opinions would make a worthwhile addition to the article. What happens, economically and socially, in a world where all software is devalued to the maximum extent? It may be that someone has considered this and painted a picture?CecilWard (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The free part of free software is about freedom, not money. Read the article and you'll understand. --201.231.165.199 (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

'almost' link to FSF's 'Explaining Why We Don't Endorse Other Systems'

I linked 'almost' in the image caption to the FSF's page on why they don't endorse the common GNU/Linux distros (here are the ones they do endorse) for the specific purpose of clarifying why 'almost' was used there, instead of wrongly claiming that Debian is entirely free (because, contrary to the belief of many Debian-fans, it isn't.) Cogburnd02 (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead section is misleading

The lead section defines "free software" as having few restrictions and seems to indicate that free software "is" or "isn't". The problem is that that isn't true at all. There are degrees and different types of freedoms. Software that allows for all use except by nuclear power plant's isn't free according to the stated definition - while the GPL /is/ free according to the definition - even though the latter is far more restrictive. IMHO this article needs significant rewriting to show that software can be "more free" or "less free" and that things are not "either free or non-free" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voomoo (talk • contribs) 00:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a clear definition of what's free and nonfree. There are no degrees of freedom regarding software. --201.231.165.199 (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Viewpoints

I added a viewpoints notice because I felt that article implicitly assumes the FSF's view. It does not mention the other major viewpoints (except in once sentence I added). It might have been better to tag this as npov.

One example would be the main picture which uses Debian as the cover picture. "almost" is linked the FSF's page - which some would argue contain non free software.

I understand that the FSF is the most vocal proponent of free software - but there are other major viewpoints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voomoo (talk • contribs) 04:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I changed it from Debian to gNewSense because the latter is endorsed and sponsored by the FSF [10]. They have very clear guidelines[11] on what is Free software or not. If someone else has another definition, please provide it.--Stormwatch (talk) 05:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I still think that it is better to use a well known distro's picture instead of a "pure" picture.

Re the definition - the FSF knowingly misleads people by providing a false definition of "free software". It is easy to look one up. Go to wiktionary for the word "free" and you find the best option 3 "Unconstrained" and then add software - you get "Unconstrained software". The GPL imposes constraints on the distribution of software and thus according to the strict definition is non-free.

However - I'm aware that Freedom is not a yes or no choice and that software could have various elements of freedom (for example the gpl contains more freedoms than the typical Mac OSX license does).

As far as I'm aware there is *no* operating system consisting entirely of maximally free software (software to which no more freedoms could legally be added)

Voomoo (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The FSF adds only the "constraints" that they believe necessary to maintain the true freedoms in free software; you should read the article "Freedom or power?" by rms and Bradley M. Kuhn. (It's not a "false definition") PS: I think we should use the pic of gNewSense; it's entirely free software, and Debian, though popular, isn't. Saying we should use a pic of Debian instead of gNewSense is like saying we should use a pic of an apple in the article about oranges because apples are more popular. 207.65.109.10 (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is about free software, it would make sense to show a picture of free software in this article and the GPL is a free software license. I'm not sure what you are suggesting the article is missing? IRWolfie- (talk) 03:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

More problems, and why 70.69.42.228's version is beyond redemption