Talk:Free software

Note: See previous discussion on Talk:Free software/Archive 1

What is the actual difference?

Ok I got it that FSF reflects the license, not the price, while 'freeware' refers to the price, not license. However what difference does this make to the average user who isn't caring about code modification etc because he knows no programming? Aren't both free of cost to him? Or can there be free software which is not gratis? Pictureuploader 12:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RMS himself had a $100 pricetag on Emacs at a time, while still under the GPL. So, yes, free software as in Eleftheria (Ελεύθερος) can still commend a hefty pricetag. As with all products in a capitalistic society, it's all about how much money is the buyer/user is willing to depart with, in order to purchase the product, ie, since i consider myself a programmer, none, cuz i can compile and configure the damn thing myself. <Insert Adam Smith here>.

Does anyone think that Freedom 2: The freedom to copy the program so you can help your neighbor. directly means to copy software to give to others (which is illegal) - atomic1fire

IMHO, Free Software is directed at society at large, which Joe Average User is part of. Free Software seeks to liberate a medium of communication and expression (the code), which is going to be at the core of all things in the next 200-300 years. Joe User doesn't have to know how to code or care about the ability to modify the code. S/he has to care about the freedom, or lack ofthereof, of the ability to express himself in a certain medium and the impact which any restriction is going to create upon himself and his society at large. <Insert anarchosyndicalist songs from the Spanish Civil War here>. Project2501a 01:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's more to it than even philosophy, as Project2501a points out above. There is also pragmatism: user X may not care whether a piece of software is free/libre, or merely free/gratis. X just wants to use it. But there might be another user Y, who can actually fiddle with the code of the program (if it is free/libre, but not if it is merely free/gratis), and release a patch for some bug, or implement a new functionality. Evidently, this would benefit the unsuspecting user X, who does not need to be a programer to be able to download the latest version of said program.

This is not theory. This is actually happening. Skype is a great example of freeware, NOT free software. There are some problems with the sound drivers under GNU/Linux (because it uses the old OSS, instead of the newer ALSA), and there are a lot of users who have implemented bizarre workarounds (which make it work fine), but have not been able to correct the source code directly, because it is proprietary. This is counterproductive, because fixing the original code directly would be easier for the developer to do and easier for the other end users to acquire (better to download the latest version, that having to download the buggy official version and a third party fix, plus then install both) Isilanes 22:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is completely inaccurate - needs major revisions

This whole article is wrong. "Free Software" as it is commonly known is not defined as narrowly as this article suggests. In fact, this article belongs under "Free Software Foundation" not the generic term of "free software". I'll wait for feedback before recommending major and dramatic changes.

I agree 100%. This whole article should be rewritten with a caveat at the top that distinguishes "Free Software" from Open Source or FSF. The world does not exist in the cubicle of linux developers and "Free Software" is not commonly understood in these terms.

Hello. I disagree 100%. Free software, not only as I understand, but also as it's used in the newspapers, means exactly "free software as defined by FSF". The open source definition either doesn't mix with the free software or is mixed with it by assuming free software and open source are all open source (and not free software). The meaning of freeware never mixes with free software at all. --Hdante 19:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree. "Free software", as a technical term worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, really has only one definition: the FSF's definition. I think the status quo, where Free software refers to the FSF's definition, and Free software (disambiguation) refers to everything else, is fine. --Wonderstruck 00:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is quite messy

No offense, but I think the article is quite hard to read/understand for a person not familiar with the topic. It does not have a clear/logical flow and the headings do not fit the text underneath in many cases. I am not sure right now, what should be done. To be constructive let me start with the overall structure. I think something like that would make sense:

History
1. A time before software license agreements -> the 60s/70s stuff
2. Avoiding license agreements iwht free software -> RMS, FSF, etc.
Political Aspects/Relevance
1. Free Software vs. Open Source Software -> the comparison text
2. Free Software as a public good -> because THIS is the political relevance
Examples -> like now but shorter

And yes, I agree that the Security section does not fit and rather belongs to "Security by obscurity". So, what do you think? Madmaxx 23:41, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree. On a related note, the history section is very, very weak. I don't know enough about the history to rewrite it, but I do know that the actions of Richard Stallman which led to the founding of the FSF are classically controversial, but only the peripheral, poor example of the printer driver is mentioned. Who cares about the printer driver? Where is the mention of his unilateralism?149.169.20.229 05:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extreem and pragmatic views of free software

Look at Extreem, FSF, Pragmatic, ... and anti views of free software.

Pragmatic to include: Practical benifits that the freedom of free software give. Look at vendor lockin, and vendor lockout. (ill try to put somethink in, in the comming weeks.)

Agree. Software being 'free' is independent of the practicality/functionality of a certain program. Actually, A program can be useless but still be free -- or very sophisticated and non-free. So, mixing the practical argumentation with the political/societal one would be misleading. Hm, we should have a place (separate article?) to compare the practical benefits of software whose source is available and closed source software... Madmaxx 22:54, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OSD not allowing copying?

The notion of OSD not allowing copying sounds like a red herring to me. I can't fathom how the DFSG (from which the OSD originated) could be construed to include redistribution and exclude copying. --Shallot 12:42, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It looks ridiculous from here and smells of original research and editorialising. This is the very first place I've heard this contention, in several years of reading FS/OS advocates' ranting. Further, if it were a real problem, I'd be very surprised at the FSF never having mentioned it. I believe this is what judges call "a novel argument." I've commented it out and eagerly await any reasonable justification and preferably a cite or several here on this talk page - David Gerard 09:54, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The mode of production of free software

The following text from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion relates to a former article which was converted to a redirect to this article before being deleted by me after a rough consensus was reached on Vfd. It is included here for the benefit of anyone wondering about the recent edits to this article. -- Oliver P. 04:36, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The mode of production of free software - Idiosyncratic attempt to philosophize about Free software using the terminology of Marxist theory. An orphan after the author's attempt to insert a link to it into Karl Marx was reverted. --Delirium 02:11, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. original essays and research Daniel Quinlan 02:23, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)
- Delete, single not-so-prominent reference. Fuzheado 03:23, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Redirected to Free software. I merged the content in there too so that that should be edited there or removed if it is problematic. Angela
- Redirect should be deleted. Unsurprisingly, all the content was deleted from Free software in less than an hour, so there's no point redirecting to a page which has nothing on this. Angela 05:19, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)
- Might as well keep. If nothing else, will allow creator to retrieve hir text. Martin 23:03, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Since when was that a reason for keeping something? It is a problematic redirect as the page it redirects to bears no relevance to the title. Problematic redirects may be deleted. If the user wishes to retrieve their text, that would seem like the ideal use for VfU. Angela 00:16, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)
  - Fair enough. Doesn't bother me dramatically. Martin 22:24, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Keep. The history is sometimes useful to see why the article was deleted. -- Taku 05:08, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. Article was nonsense to begin with, was deleted from Free software. I think concerns about retrieving the history do not apply. At18 17:23, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. The article was factually untrue to begin with; it cannot be salvaged. Delete. -- Mattworld 02:20, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Delete, inappropriate redirect. --Minesweeper 19:51, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)

End of moved text

libre/gratis/free

Generally, the "libre" definition for "free" has higher priority than the "gratis" definition for "free". Therefore, shouldn't the "libre" definition for "free software" be the primary one, and the "gratis" definition for "free software" be the secondary one? Are there any objections to swapping the order of the two?

I think this is a correct observation; the article should be changed accordingly. --snoyes 15:56, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

IMHO, the gratis software should get its own article, since it is an entirely differnt thing. It is just sometimes called by the same name -- Sloyment 03:46, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"libre software"?

Are the terms "gratis software" and "libre software" coming from some source that somebody could cite? Because in spanish and other languages which use those words, that's said wrong; you'd say "software gratis" and "software libre". A minor nitpick if you will, but I'm just curious because every single article in Wikipedia that mentions it writes it like that.

Here's some example references:

Actually, there's more at alternative terms for free software.

I think what's happening is that Anglo-speakers want to adopt the "liberty"-rich word "libre" but still preserve the english language usage to put the adjective at the beginning of the phrase. --71.161.214.135 01:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, you don't say "software gratis" in Spanish, but rather "software gratuito". "Gratis" is and adverb, and "gratuito" an adjective. In English "free" stands for both. Interestingly, for "libre" it's the other way around: "libre" is an adjective (free), and "libremente" an adverb (freely). So funnily enough, gratis and libre can not be confronted, but rather gratis/libremente or gratuito/libre. However this is a bit too much nit-picking, because the use of adjectives and adverbs is so messed up already among the general public (in Spain, and I guess in most countries). Isilanes 13:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Separate articles for libre and gratis?

I added a link to the free software article from the Microsoft article and then I realised that some readers might be confused after following the link. The problem is that gratis software and libre software share an article. Could this article be divided in two to avoid this confusion?

Tim Ivorson 21:00, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm opposed to splitting, precisely because the two terms are used interchangably. "Free software" is the term for both, and this article should make clear what free software is gratis and which is libre. Jo r 21:17, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I see what you mean. In that case, the ambiguity should be fixed in the articles that use 'free software.' How do you suggest I modify 'free software' to remove the ambiguity in my link from the Microsoft article? I can think of several ways (free (as in speech) software, free (open source) software, free (as in freedom) software, etc.), but it would be nice to have one term for consistent use in removing 'free software' ambiguity. -- Tim Ivorson 22:11, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's my point really: 'gratis software' and 'libre software' are geek terms, which do not see mainstream use (and will not in the foreseeable future). The layman knows the term 'free software', and associates both kinds with it. Any disambiguation should occur inside this article, and not on the opposite end (in my opinion anyway). Perhaps best: split the article INTERNALLY in two, and change the MS link to something like [[Free software#gratis]] and a Linux link to [[Free software#libre]] Jo r 22:16, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of that. It's a good idea. No further internal division is necessary. I have used it in the Microsoft article. -- Tim Ivorson 22:30, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Free(dom) software and gratis software are two very different things, and as Wikipedia's primary purpose is explaining phenomena, not just words, these things should be explained in different articles. This would also help for interwiki links, as the ambinguity does not occur in every language. As free software as in freedom is a well defined technical term, and also used this way most of the time, I'd say, let's keep the freedom stuff here, and move the gratis stuff to gratis software. -- Sloyment 04:51, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I totally agree. By the way, the FSF itself capitalises the term Free Software to distinguish it from 'free as in free beer', but that won't be a cure in our case. Free Software and Freeware are two distinct terms with distinct meanings, and in my opinion should be treated accordingly to clear up all the confusion. -- Demitsu 18:15, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

This article is massively confusing due to the double meaning of "free software" throughout. These are two entirely different concepts which merely happen to have the same name in English. Note how we separate Chicago the city from Chicago the movie. The same should be done here. "Free software" should redirect to "Free software (FSF)", and there should be an alternate meaning notice at the top of "Free software (FSF)": This article refers to free software as defined by the Free_Software_Foundation. For software available free of charge, see Freeware. Then on "Freeware" place a notice: This article refers to software available free of charge. For "free software" as defined by the Free_Software_Foundation, see Free software (FSF).

Note that "free software" is typically used as a slang term in marketing, like "free jellybeans." Freeware is a more precise term, and more suited to an encyclopedia. So I think this solves the double meaning problem as well. Connelly 10:14, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree that that definition should be marked as "FSF" because there's other notable definitions that accomplish the same effect and it would be largely incorrect to put them under the FSF umbrella. (This is not dissimilar to how not every Linux distribution should be named "GNU/Linux" just because GNU/FSF is important.) --Joy [shallot] 10:50, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Connelly it should be split into Freeware and Free software. People currently are comming here from articles like GDB and getting confused about which definition applies to the article that linked to this one, and for interwiki reasons. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 10:05, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)

Not all FSF-approved licenses are OSI-approved either

It is not true that all FSF-approved free software licenses are OSI-approved open source licenses. Example: the Netscape Public License. FSF lists this as a free software license "with problems;" the OSI doesn't list it at all. I asked OSI about this precise point when writing http://www.mozilla.org/start/1.0/opensource.html and got a message back from Danese Cooper saying that the NPL doesn't qualify because of the bias toward Netscape Communications Corporation. - David Gerard 22:00, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

Codified

"The freedom definition of "free software" has been championed by the Free Software Foundation (FSF), founded by Richard Stallman, who codified his philosophy of software freedom in the 1980s."

What does "codified mean"? ;-) —Noldoaran (Talk) 05:01, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

Put in the 'coda' (book), or 'set to paper'. Jo r 22:24, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Pure public good

"Once a free software product has started to circulate, it soon becomes available at little or no cost. At the same time, its utility does not decrease. This means that free software can be characterized as more like a culture good than a commodity."

The term most commonly used for such a good is a 'pure public good'. A pure public good is a good that is nonrival (my use of the good does not prevent you from using the good) and nonexclusive (It is difficult / impossible for someone to restrict a person's use of the good). --ShaunMacPherson 06:45, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Less cheering

IMHO, we need more facts from the less cheering side. Like the accusations of viral properties and criticism of Stallman in general. Not everybody may agree to these, but they are out there and deserve to be made known in an encyclopedia article. Watcher 21:00, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for these on Talk:GNU General Public License, but it looks like we'll have to write them ourselves. Should GPL criticism be there or here? BSD license criticism? Etc. - David Gerard 21:26, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

You can mention it, but point to the specific articles for a more thorough critique. For instance, David Lancashire claims that free software developers gravitate to where market opportunities arise, and this view is in agreement with Lerner and Tirole.

While criticisms of his ideas related to free software may be appropriate, personal criticisms of Richard Stallman are off topic here; They belong either on the Richard Stallman article, or nowhere. --Wonderstruck 00:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DFSG and !software

User from 4.5.64.250 wrote: Debian has always advocated freedom of all digital information, not just recently. When the DFSG was first written, it was intended to apply to everything Debian would distribute, not just programs.

Just for the record, that is completely irrelevant for the encyclopedia, which doesn't record wishful thinking but facts. In the 1990s, the DFSG was only being applied to software, and that meant programs with source code. Then, a few years ago, the LDP documents and the RFCs were mass-checked for compliance by the maintainers, which marked the beginning of the period when the docs became subject to it. Right now it's still not being applied to all digital information, and even if the current purge of firmwares, fonts etc would be completed one day, such a statement would still be an overgeneralization because it can't be applied to the license texts. --Shallot 16:51, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How's the present version? I've commented out the "some people" bit on the grounds that it's not really significant in the present state of things - David Gerard 17:08, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's not really that insignificant because it does mark a trend. It should just be made clear what's wishful thinking and what are the facts. --Shallot 17:41, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Documentation and other data has always been subject to the DFSG. In this debian-legal message, Bruce Perens, the author of the DFSG, stated "I intended for the entire contents of that CD to be under the rights stated in the DSFG - be they software, documentation, or data.". The only thing that has changed in recent years is the diligence used when examining packages in Debian. --4.5.64.250 03:45, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I know exactly what Bruce said, but that really doesn't mean all that much given that most of e.g. LDP docs were blatantly non-free even when he was the project leader. A half-hearted intent is not particularly relevant for this encyclopedia entry. --Shallot 09:34, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, edit for accuracy at will, unless you feel you're close enough to it that you shouldn't :-) - David Gerard 10:52, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Like I said, the only thing that changed was the diligence used in auditing packages and applying the DFSG. Considering that the project just agreed by more than 4:1 that they really do want the DFSG applied to everything, I think it is reasonable to state that as the majority opinion of the Debian project. There are certainly dissenting opinions, but they are in the minority. --4.5.64.250 00:00, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have explained several times in the discussions about this that the project did not agree to such a thing any more after the vote than it did before the vote, and to my knowledge there hasn't been a single reply contradicting that, only the different interpretations, of which the one by the release manager had the greatest weight when it comes to the release process. In any event, I don't think that Wikipedia has any reason to bother with the whole semantic-syntactic debate of what the opinion of Debian is, simply stating the facts will suffice. --Shallot 00:39, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Zero index list is NPOV in this case

67.100.125.250 06:38, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC): User:Darrien changed the FSF definition in this article to omit the "poetic" use of a zero-based list.

No, I removed the "help your neighbor" stuff as being too poetic.

Since the list is specifically defined to be FSF's definition (which is zero-based), I don't see what the issue is here.

Few people use zero based indices in everyday life, and most people will be confused by a zero based index. This is supposed to be a general encyclopedia, not a computer science/political rhetoric dumping ground. It is much clearer to use bullet points rather than any index at all. However, a one based index should always be used if ever needed. An obvious exeption would be computer science articles.

Darrien 06:55, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

67.100.125.250 07:01, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC): I agree that zero-based indices are an artifice. I agree that the FSF definition, with its references to neighbors and community, is beyond the pragmatic. I have no ax to grind here except the simple one that the list is meant to be a recap of the FSF definition, and they define it that way (see the reference link). Note that it is an unnumbered bullet item, so the zero-based names are just parenthetical remarks.

I agree. It says it's the list as defined by the FSF, zero index and all. You could put it in quotes if you want, but I think that'd look even worse - David Gerard 07:53, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How should we label free software links on wikipedia articles?

The whole point of wikipedia is to make knowledge as free (as in free speech) as possible. But a lot of knowledge is represented using formulae and also using computer software. Surely it would be consistent with the spirit of wikipedia to put a priority on helping someone who reads e.g. computer algebra system an easy way of picking up which are the free systems, without having to click through a dozen links - especially given that someone might want to pick up free software packages from a dozen or so different wikipedia pages. It's practical to browse through, e.g. 12 pages, but browsing through 144 pages is getting beyond what's practical. And the battle between free knowledge/software and closed knowledge/software often comes up against the practicality argument - i'm getting a bit tired of hearing But linux is too difficult or But i want to use this package and it doesn't exist in linux, but making it easier to find free software is surely a good idea. OK, enough ranting ;).

i'll try out something on computer algebra system with a template - i suggest this discussion page (Talk:Free software) as the place to discuss this further . Anyway, let's try something... Boud 12:36, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

T-shirt photos

Step back and think about this. You are putting people wearing GNU/free-software T-shirts on this page. Do you have any idea how silly that is? To top it off, this article is not about GNU/free-software alone. It talks about freeware and other types as well.

P.S. Please do not revert my edits without at least giving an edit summary.

Darrien 03:22, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)

These pictures are so awful. I mean, we aim to illustrate our articles, but not like this. The only photo I could see as relevant on this article would be a photograph of a free software convention or something like that. Not photos of T-shirts. - Mark 03:40, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree that there could be much more appropriate pictures to illustrate this article. Lacking a better solution, I'd say keep just one for now. --Joy [shallot]

Splitting of the Free Software article into Free software and Freeware

I split Free software into two parts, Free software and Freeware and put any leftovers here, they should be merged into either one. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 15:12, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

Security section

I don't like the Security section. I removed it once, but it was added again. The bottom paragraph is basically a "look, these free software packages rule!! M$ sux!!" kinda thing. fataltourist 23:09, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph in question. --minghong 18:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RMS on BitKeeper

RMS: BitKeeper bon-voyage is a happy ending Monday April 25, 2005 (01:00 PM GMT) By: Richard M. Stallman

"For the first time in my life, I want to thank Larry McVoy. He recently eliminated a major weakness of the free software community, by announcing the end of his campaign to entice free software projects to use and promote his non-free software. Soon, Linux development will no longer use this program, and no longer spread the message that non-free software is a good thing if it's convenient.

My gratitude is limited, since it was McVoy that created the problem in the first place. But I still appreciate his decision to clear it up.

There are thousands of non-free programs, and most merit no special attention, other than developing a free replacement. What made this program, BitKeeper, infamous and dangerous was its marketing approach: inviting high-profile free software projects to use it, so as to attract other paying users.

McVoy made the program available gratis to free software developers. This did not mean it was free software for them: they were privileged not to part with their money, but they still had to part with their freedom. They gave up the fundamental freedoms that define free software: freedom to run the program as you wish for any purpose, freedom to study and change the source code as you wish, freedom to make and redistribute copies, and freedom to publish modified versions.

The Free Software Movement has said "Think of free speech, not free beer" for 15 years. McVoy said the opposite; he invited developers to focus on the lack of monetary price, instead of on freedom. A free software activist would dismiss this suggestion, but those in our community who value technical advantage above freedom and community were susceptible to it.

McVoy's great triumph was the adoption of this program for Linux development. No free software project is more visible than Linux. It is the kernel of the GNU/Linux operating system, an essential component, and users often mistake it for the entire system. As McVoy surely planned, the use of his program in Linux development was powerful publicity for it.

It was also, whether intentionally or not, a powerful political PR campaign, telling the free software community that freedom-denying software is acceptable as long as it's convenient. If we had taken that attitude towards Unix in 1984, where would we be today? Nowhere. If we had accepted using Unix, instead of setting out to replace it, nothing like the GNU/Linux system would exist.

Of course, the Linux developers had practical reasons for what they did. I won't argue with those reasons; they surely know what's convenient for them. But they did not count, or did not value, how this would affect their freedom -- or the rest of the community's efforts.

A free kernel, even a whole free operating system, is not sufficient to use your computer in freedom; we need free software for everything else, too. Free applications, free drivers, free BIOS: some of those projects face large obstacles -- the need to reverse engineer formats or protocols or pressure companies to document them, or to work around or face down patent threats, or to compete with a network effect. Success will require firmness and determination. A better kernel is desirable, to be sure, but not at the expense of weakening the impetus to liberate the rest of the software world.

When the use of his program became controversial, McVoy responded with distraction. For instance, he promised to release it as free software if the company went out of business. Alas, that does no good as long as the company remains in business. Linux developers responded by saying, "We'll switch to a free program when you develop a better one." This was an indirect way of saying, "We made the mess, but we won't clean it up."

Fortunately, not everyone in Linux development considered a non-free program acceptable, and there was continuing pressure for a free alternative. Finally Andrew Tridgell developed an interoperating free program, so Linux developers would no longer need to use a non-free program.

McVoy first blustered and threatened, but ultimately chose to go home and take his ball with him: he withdrew permission for gratis use by free software projects, and Linux developers will move to other software. The program they no longer use will remain unethical as long as it is non-free, but they will no longer promote it, nor by using it teach others to give freedom low priority. We can begin to forget about that program.

We should not forget the lesson we have learned from it: Non-free programs are dangerous to you and to your community. Don't let them get a place in your life.

There should be a distinction between "free" and "FSF"

There are plenty of people that use the term "free" that don't really associate (or agree with) the FSF. This article assumes free == FSF == RMS which is a bit of an oversimplification.

I would say the term "free software" is just what people called it before that Eric Raymond fella (I'll withold my opinion of him) et al. decided to create all this "open source" hype. A lot of the types that still don't buy into Raymond's trendy ideas still use "free" over "open". There are lots of free projects that fit Stallman's definition of free, that use the word "free", but whose developers would object to the Stallman comparison.

I'd like to edit this article to reflect that but I don't know how it fits in the current one, which seems very FSF-oriented. -- unsigned.

Fortunately or unfortunately, the free software community is indeed broader than just the FSF. However, the words accepted understanding is rooted in the history and foundings by FSF and RMS. --71.241.136.108 17:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Free Software Wikiportal

Does anyone want to make a Free Software Wikiportal? I noticed there's one on the French wikipedia, here is the link to "Portail Logiciels libres", and one on the German wikipedia, here is the link to "Portal Freie Software". This would be a good place to organize all the free software links. I noticed the French Cygwin/X page, here has a free software template, here, that links to the portal. This would be helpful to our English Cygwin/X page so people can found out about other free software. -Hyad 03:11, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I started one (Portal:free software) but it needs a lot of work and I got busy. Gronky 01:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"free software" and "open source" stand for different philosophical values

In an attempt to remove a POV, user Pengo has instead introduced one. The original sentence by RMS read:

"Although the license criteria are nearly identical, "free software" and "open source" stand for different philosophical values."

The assertion of the second phrase (after the comma) is not really a matter of opinion. Any person can compare the differences of the two movements by reading the stated motives and objectives on the movements' respective Websites:

http://www.gnu.org/ (click on the Why we exist link)

http://www.opensource.org/ (front page and FAQ)

It would be difficult to construct a reasonable argumentation to convince people that the two movements are philosophically identical. However, it would not be difficult to construct a reasonable argumentation to convince people that the two movements are different. The question of "how different" and "to what degree" is of course a matter of opinion, but at least there is room for a debate there.

The new sentence now reads:

"Although the license criteria and development practices are nearly identical, according to Stallman, the free software movement considers its philosophical values fundamentally different to those of open source movement."

Whether the philosophical values of the two movements are fundamentally, radically, significantly, unsignificantly, positively, negatively, importantly, or unimportantly different is quite interesting a topic, but whichever one we pick won't provide us with the kind of material we want to include in an encyclopedia.

The original sentence should be reinserted back I believe, or possibly, the new sentence of user Pengo could be retained, but be rewritten so as to remove the POV. For example, this one would be fairly reasonable in my opinion:

"Although the license criteria and development practices are nearly identical, the philosophical values promoted by the free software movement are different from those of the open source movement." Then possibly by using quotes from both websites, we could state the motives and objectives of the movements and let the Wikipedia readers make their own opinion on the case. -- Mathieugp 18:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I like your suggestion best, but the original phrasing (by RMS) is fine, too. Rl 19:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What the free software and open source movements stand for is not defined by those web sites, nor by the people who coined the terms, but by the people who belong to the movement(s) themselves. Many people in the free software movement do not hold exact same ideals of Richard Stallman (indeed no "GNU/Linux distribution" goes as far as he'd like), and i'd imagine even fewer open source advocates would consider ESR to be the definer of what the open source movement stands for. Most software developers write GPL'd or other F/OSS code because they believe in what it will achieve, not in the doctrine from a web site. For many the distinction is irrelevant and meaningless, and the terminology battles just distract from a common goal.

While I agree my phrasing isn't ideal (especially the word "fundamentally"), I would argue that many people do not believe it necessary to choose between the different movements, as they are essentially the same thing. I also chose the phrasing to reflect that Free Software advocates (such as RMS) choose to distance themselves from Open Source more than vice versa.

I don't live in California, but in Melbourne, and here Open Source and Free Software are used practically interchanbly by developers. There are not "open source" conferences and "free software" conferences. There are not "Linux user groups" and "GNU/Linux user groups". There are just conferences and user groups that are not exclusive to anyone. I imagine it is similiar everywhere else in the world. Hackers are smart people, and everyone has their own opinion, and few are the same as those prescribed on GNU's or OSI's web sites.

Unfortunately I don't have a poll of developers of F/OSS who consider themselves to identify with (a) one movement, (b) both, or (c) see no fundamental difference between the two, so I can only appeal to sensibilities. All I'd like to see in the article is acknowledgement that not everyone do not consider there to be "two camps", nor for the ideals to be different, and in my opinion that is a majority of people.

Please make some new suggestions for the paragraph. But I will be disgusted by the Free Software movement if they consider their opinions to all come from one man.

—Pengo

POV

The Social significance of free software, individual motives and relative security sections are a combination of POV, odd stuff that is off-topic, and unsourced claims. I'm not even sure what the meaning of the "individual motivations" section is, and it seems like it may be original research as well. Nathan J. Yoder 17:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added cleanup-section templates. You could have done this too: just add {{cleanup-section}} on the top of these sections. ;-) --Hdante 03:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

There's an AFD for a new article which essentially duplicates the content (an effecitve merger) of this article and others: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative terms for free software. Nathan J. Yoder 04:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is Darwin a kernel ?

According to Darwin article, Darwin is the whole operating system, while it's kernel is called XNU. If this is correct, then the example section here should be changed. Please review. --Hdante 19:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct that Darwin is an OS, and since BSD and GNU/Linux are also both OSs, I've just changed "Operating system kernels:" to "Operating systems:". Gronky 23:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Now the kernels are missing. This will get confusing. :-/... Maybe operating systems/kernels ? --Hdante 00:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that they're missing - there's info about the kernel of each operating system on each operating system's page. And I can't picture someone being confused by the page not listing free software kernels. I think Linux deserves a special mention because it's an unusually famous kernel, but I can't think of a clean way to add it. Also, when I was editing that section, I started thinking it was too big anyway. Maybe listing the 20 or so most well known projects. I'm not sure, but I do know I'm stuck for time this week, so I won't be doing much. Gronky 12:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Open Source is not Free Software

About one or two months ago, I spoke with Richard Matthew Stallman on the subject of Free Software. He told me that Free Software was anything BUT Open Source Software. He wanted to make absolutely sure that I knew that. He says Open Source costs a lot of money, whereas Free Software is different in some way.

Please help me to understand this more fully. -- Anonymous

It is more appropriate to think of free software as "anything but" proprietary software. The difference between open source and free software, and between free software and proprietary software is not just about money. Try looking at Open source vs. free software. Hope that helps. --64.91.160.207 04:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There must have been some misunderstanding. Here's an essay by Richard about the two names: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html Gronky 22:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be taken into account

One of the definitions of Free software in this article is that it is non-commercial, and not to be sold for profit. The FSF goes right against this, and on its website says that free software can be commercial as well. (As it is 'Free as in freedom, not free as in free beer')

You totally misread the intro. Go read it again and realize your foolishness. --maru (talk) contribs 18:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes from atricle

'Copies of free software can be sold, although there is often less incentive to buy free software when it can usually be obtained for free.'

'and not software which is sold for profit, such as commercial software'

That is contradiction...

Proprietary software

I changed this paragraph: "Proprietary software" is distributed under more restrictive software licenses. Copyright law and/or contract law restrict modification, duplication and redistribution by users; software released under a free software license rescinds most of these reserved rights.

It is not necessary to put "Proprietary software" in quotes in my opinion. I think the definition is quite uncontroversial.

It is not correct that "free software rescinds these rights". According to current law in the US and Europe, if someone possesses a program then they can run it how they like. So there's no "reserved rights" to rescind. I think it's important that a distinction is drawn between licenses like the GPL that consist of permissions as opposed to EULAs which claim to use contract law to restrict the ability to run the program as you would like.Trious 13:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If copyright law has no concern about reserved rights by itself, this is purely a theoretical matter. It is tradition (and commonsense and the outside-the-box purpose) for a copyright law be used with a license that restricts the cited rights: modification, duplication and redistribution. The purpose of the original text (which is kind of a rephrasing of Stallman words) is to show this tradition: copyright law restricts modification, duplication and redistribution by users. A radical person would say that separating the two concepts would be hypocrisy in the real world. Ok, the original text was not theoretically correct. Put the "copyright" word back, however. Let this comment be understood by the readers. --Hdante 20:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hdante, I'm not sure what you mean here. I think it's important to recognise that the GPL does not attempt to cover uses of the program. It only covers redistribution. RMS says this himself, see for example the video of the GPLv3 draft presentation. US and UK copyright law, not sure about others, specifically allow people to modify and run programs that they possess. Hence copyright law isn't used to restrict what end users' do with software. This is where contract law comes in. According to proprietary software companies, clicking "OK" to their EULA, or openning the shrinkwrap packaging, or whatever, means you accept their EULA, and so have a contract that's enforceable under contract law. I personally think this is on very shaky legal ground. But whatever you think, EULA's are certainly very different to the GPL. The GPL is a unilateral offer of permissions to do things that the end user wouldn't normally be allowed to do: namely redistribute the software, with possible modifications. Trious 20:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Are you saying that modification and duplication are uses of the program, thus, allowed by copyright law ?
What I'm saying is that there's no such thing as a (non-BSD/GPL) commercial software without an EULA. Software which doesn't use (restrictive) EULAs together with copyrights is statistically inexistent (sorry, can't cite sources for that). It doesn't matter whether the restrictions come from copyright law or contract law if you always get both of them. A mention about this should be in the text.--Hdante 04:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modification (patching), and duplication for purposes of backup or normal operation of the computer is permitted in all cases by copyright law. (um, exempting DMCA anti-circumvention provisions if in the USA). But what you can't do without the permission of the copyright holder is distribute the software (although you can sell boxed software, see First Sale doctrine) or distribute derivative works. (Unless it's Fair Use of course.)
This may be true but it doesn't change the fact that copyright law and EULA's have nothing to do with each other. There is already much confusion about this (mainly created by software companies' lawyers and FUD teams), so let's not add to it. Trious 19:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in Libre software

Anyone going there is far more likely to be looking for an explanation about the concept rather than 5 lines only about where the term came from. The small amount of info there could be merged in. Gronky 23:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to keep the article, but instead make sure that the links to Libre software are appropriate or not, or whether they should be to free software instead. That way anyone following links to Libre software get the exact answer and don't have to grok the entire free software article. --71.241.136.108 17:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the proposed merger. I think that the terms are clearly synonymous, there is no reason for a separate page, a redirect will suffice. Trious 21:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Alternative terms for free software instead. That page already mentions the "libre software" term; the only content to move, I think, is the observation that "libre" itself is ambiguous in Tagalog and perhaps other languages. Possibly the latter page should itself be merged into Free software; I think that's a separate question. --Greg Price 22:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Selling free software for profit?

From the article: "Free software gives users the same freedoms the copyright holder has, while the owners of proprietary software restrict freedoms to make profit."

This statement suggests that free software may be legally sold profit. Is this true, or may free software be legally sold only at the cost of producing the copy? --Theshibboleth 22:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Former. --maru (talk) contribs 22:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See FSF's Selling Free Software or the GPL FAQ. --71.241.131.233 04:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Meatball

Hi Swedish Meatball, any special reason you feel that free software doesn't ease internationalization and prevent media tie-ins? (edits) (anon edits) --Nnp 23:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you would have a better case if you could cite some sources for these statements. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. However, if you take a look at the linked edit histories you will see he's quite determined about this, so I'm simply asking what his reasoning is.

With that said, it could perhaps be reworded into something that indicates that it eases /user/ translation of software, since the user has the source and can just open it and replace the relevant strings (if the english is hardcoded) or edit the translation files. This is pretty obvious and can be seen in the number of languages most free software projects beyond a certain size supports.

I will try to back this up with a source or two later. --Nnp 00:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think one of his previous edit summaries said "rm false info", and with this complete set of statements being presented as facts without sources - I have to agree. It is up to you (us) to provide a source and to present any counter-arguments. Also, remember that these are only arguments which should not be presented as fact. A useful source for this debate is the MS-Peru letters[2] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does free software discourage games?

If anything, releasing a game's source code (Doom, Quake), et al) as free software (as opposed to releasing the entire game) encourages others to develop revised and new game engines that run on alternative operating systems and devices, encouraging gamers to purchase the proprietary game so the game files (graphics, sounds, etc.) can be married to the new engine. I know I re-purchased Doom so I could play the game with PrBoom on my Ubuntu system, thereby generating more income for id Software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.111.235.36 (talk • contribs)

Commercial games tend not to use free engines for several reasons:

Engines of AAA commercial games often contain trade-secreted techniques and thus are considered a strategic asset to their copyright owners. (Id Software can get away with Freeing its engines after several years because the value of these techniques decreases over time as they are independently rediscovered or reverse-engineered from the executable.)
There's still a healthy market in licensing of video game engines. (Same depreciation argument as above.)
The situation for aggregation of proprietary game data with a copylefted engine is poorly understood.
Video game consoles from the Big Three (Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft) use a trade-secreted bootloader that denies the owner of a machine the right to modify the game engine and run it. In fact, the GNU GPL version 3 draft prohibits "modes of distribution that deny users that run covered works the full exercise of the legal rights granted by this License." Thus the situation for use of a copylefted engine on a console is poorly understood.
Because of latency issues, action games that use online play must necessarily send information that the program hides from the user at the moment the packet is received, just in case that information becomes visible to the player between now and the next packet. For example, if this information includes the coordinates of an opponent waiting behind a wall, there is little or no way to prevent people from wallhacking their clients short of prohibiting modification of the client software.

--Damian Yerrick (☎) 01:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your last issue (prohibiting modification of client software in online games, to prevent some hacks), that is not really a reason against free software in games. Recall that what is required is that all players use the same "version" (or one among the subset accepted by all) of the game, NOT that the "original" game be immutable. You have a (legally modified) version of the game that allows you to see through walls? Then you can't play here, sorry. As simple as that. No need to ban a user of modifying a piece of software the way she sees fit. Just some modifications are not allowed in some arenas, like you don't use swearwords in front of kids, but it doesn't prevent the society of inventing and using such swearwords in other contexts. Isilanes 18:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is still the problem how to make sure everyone does indeed use the same version. As every check for this would be open source, they can be circumvented. --MushroomCloud 15:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free software as a libertarian movement

The statement that "There is some evidence that free software is congruent with libertarian ideals of economic liberty, intellectual property [3]..." is not very clear. First, intellectual property is ambiguous catch-all phrase, second, free software advocates tend to be critical about IP over-enforcement, third, even the article linked says that the libertanians are divided about IP. What is the libertanian ideal of IP then?

I suggest removing the "intellectual property" part of this sentence.

Political Characterisation

I am going to delete that section. First, stating that a particular software program is communist, socialist, capitalist, liberal/libertarian, fascist, etc. makes little sense. Also, that section is totally loaded with libertarian POV. This article should describe the software, its history, importance, etc. and not describe political claims about it. Possibly a smaller section could be created, but the current section needs to be deleted. 72.139.119.165 23:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also do the bit about "loss of incentives for commercial innovation... lack of a capitalist competitive business environment"

e.g. if RedHat and Suse (or EmperorLinux and Yellow Dog, or Ximian and Lycoris) are selling Free Software products, competing against each other, and writing innovative commercial software, then every part of that statement is wrong... Ojw 23:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what's your source on that? You use lots of fancy terms, but my intuition tell me it's meaningless. jedsen

POV paragraph claiming that free software is antagonist with capitalism and/or commercial incentive

I'm removing this paragraph which is clearly POV. Since there are also well-known opinions that contradict it:

 http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gpl-american-way.html
 http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gpl-american-dream.html
 http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/software-libre-commercial-viability.html

62.57.142.73 13:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public Domain Software

The article mentions public domain software as an example of free software, but I don't think there is any public domain software in the USA, at least. My understanding is that it is not possible to "surrender" copyrights, and I don't think any software is old enough for its copyright to have expired. I don't want to just delete that part of the article, however, because the situation may differ in other countries. In any case, this should be clarified.

I think the public domain still exists in the USA. For one example, the government of the USA cannot claim copyright and therefore their works are public domain (this does not apply to works which they commission by third parties). However, you may be right about other countries. I don't know enough to comment though. Gronky 20:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is how it works in the US. All goverment production is either public domain or it is classified. The American goverment cannot patent or copyright an idea (although their employees can). All works before 1923 are in public domain. All works after that have strange copright durations due to the changing laws about copyright over the last 83 years. Additionally there is no provision in the law allowing for someone to place their works in public domain. Although one could get around this by providing a licence for their work that stated the same uses as public domain. This was never a problem until reciently when the goverment decided to change the laws to make all works produced by an individual copyrighted. What you pay for with a copyright is the proof that you made the item before anyone else did. In other words it takes the burden of proof off of you if you would ever need to sue/protect your self from being sued if someone else came up with the same idea that you did. See http://www.benedict.com/Info/Law/Duration.aspx for reference on copyright duration. See http://www.edwardsamuels.com/copyright/beyond/articles/public.html for exclusion of goverment by copyright and menchone of no law allowing auhor to place work in public domain. Andrew D White 20:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free as in freedom

Why not call it freedom software if this "free as in freedom" is so often quoted? 165.230.129.135 17:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because "free" is an adjective, and goes with a substantive ("software"), describing it. The FSF could be a "freedom movement", as a "freedom fighter" is someone who fights to obtain freedom. However, the Free Software is so because it is free in itself, not because it "fights" for freedom. The Free Software contributors are a "freedom movement" who generate "free software".

However, there could be a point in using the term "freedom software", if we think of the Free Software as a tool to fight for the Freedom. Isilanes 20:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is "free software" really?

The following comment was put into the article. I've notified the contributor and have moved it here. The edit that added this comment to the article can be seen here: [4] Gronky 16:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page defines "free software" as "software which can be used, copied, studied, modified and redistributed without restriction" and claims the FSF defines it the same way. They do not. Those words do not appear on the page at the FSF explaining what free software is (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) ... and for good reason!

In fact, the GPL does not allow software to be modified and redistributed without restriction - there are key restrictions on this which create the "viral" nature of the GPL, and it could be said that these restrictions form the core of the GPL - they are "the whole point", so to speak.

For instance, GPL software cannot be "linked" with non-GPL software and redistributed, and this limits the user's freedom to modify and redistribute in important ways.

Thus, the GPL appears to be incompatible with the most obvious definition of "free software" and is considered by some (pejoratively) as a "non-free" license.

These restrictions do not exist in BSD licenses nor with public domain software, and such software is sometimes considered "more free" than GPL software - the BSD license fits "without restriction" very well by requiring only attribution, while public domain software fits the definition exactly by requiring nothing. Many people believe that the additional restrictions contained in the GPL are irrelevant to the question of freedom.

(User:213.123.226.227)

It's a good point. There are restrictions, but they are there to prevent other, harsher restrictions from appearing. Perhaps this needs to be worded a little more clearly. I've modified the first paragraph to "little or no restriction". I don't think it needs it's own section, otherwise it will probably start to duplicate too much information that is better elsewhere, such as on GNU GPL/BSD license, Copyleft, etc. --h2g2bob 16:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nit-picking about GPL not being "free enough" is silly. The GPL is as "unfree" as it is to make it illegal to shoot folk who do not share one's POV. The (silly) "freedom to shoot anybody" is cut short to guaranty a definitely more important freedom (the one to think and speak one's mind freely), which would not be possible to guaranty without the banning to use violence. Argueing that some other license is "more free" than GPL, just because it allows for more things is like argueing that allowing people shooting others at will adds to the freedom of the society. Isilanes 14:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the important point, which the article should reflect, is that free software (and the GPL) is not about an undefined "free". It's never sufficient to say "I support freedom", there has to be a definition. Free software, and the GPL, are about ensuring the recipient is free to run, modify, and redistribute (modified or unmofidied) the software they receive. Gronky 14:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a disclaimer at the top of the article. 80.233.255.7 14:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't "nit-picking", it's an argument that is at the core of the non-proprietary software world and that has remained unresolved for over 20 years. It's the key religious difference between the BSD/MIT/X and GPL camps, and like most schismatic rifts it isn't likely to ever heal completely. Of course the GPL restricts the actions of its licensees - the whole point of the license is to restrict the distributor and ensure that the receiver gets the whole package, source and all. The question of whether these restrictions are "good" or "bad" is one of POV, and one that doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. This article should (indeed, must under Wikipedia policies) present Free Software from a purely factual perspective and avoid judging any of the arguments pro or con. In fact, with the exception of direct quotes from the FSF, Stallman, et al., the article should probably avoid using loaded terms like "freedom" to describe the effects of the GPL and similar licenses. RossPatterson 00:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument further supports qualifying as superfluous (if not idiotic) any warning (within Wikipedia) to GPL not being completely free. We are not discussing if "freedom" and "GPL" could/should be mentioned together, but rather if it should be mentioned that GPL is not so "free" after all. I call this bullshit, and I claim that if it be the case, then similar "warnings" should be issued in, e.g., Democracy, Constitution and so on. Moreover, I propose that the sentence Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia be rephrased to Wikipedia, the not-fully-free encyclopedia, on the basis that I can not write whatever in it, because its restricting policies limit my freedom to do so. Isilanes 11:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Isilanes, words like "freedom" are not biased in this context, and attempts to avoid them risks adding weasel words to the article. I don't see the page as biased, but a proper definition section and brief mention of the differences between BSD/GPL would be welcome. --h2g2bob 15:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The actual definition seems to be under "Free software licenses", so perhaps that should be renamed to "Definition and free software licenses" and moved up the page a bit; or the definition placed in it's own section. Renaming the section is my first choice, as the definition seems to run the whole length of that section (I'd say that things like Copyleft/Public Domain distinction and the Debian guidelines are really definition). --h2g2bob 17:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free vs Open

"While most open source software is also free software and vice-versa, this is not always the case" That is not a good explanation. Every free (as in freedom) software is open source, but not every (though most) open source software is free software. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.156.208.214 (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

"Large FLOSS Study Gets the Real Facts"

Article on Slashdot; link to PDF. Summary from Slashdot also gives a better insight on the importance of this document: "The European Commission's enterprise and industry department has just released the final draft of what could be the biggest academic interdisciplinary study on the economic / innovative impacts of free/libre/open source software (1.8-MB PDF). The study was done by an international consortium led by the United Nations University / University of Maastricht. The lead researcher, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh, has overseen a large volume of FLOSS studies in the last few years, including ones on FLOSS policies and worldwide FLOSS adoption." This PDF contains a gigantic amount of information that can be added to the article. —msikma (user, talk) 14:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate definition

Removed from the first sentence: "beyond the requirement that the source code must be made available for any binary distribution of another party's free software". This is nonsense. The FSF's definition of free software does not require that it be copyleft; copyleft is a technique used by the FSF to keep its own software free, but the FSF still considers many licenses which permit binary redistribution without source code to be free software licenses. 81.86.133.45 21:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About "with little or no restriction" in the first paragraph

If you glance at the fsf's site, they say the following:

"We serve the free software community by providing the public with a "knowledge infrastructure" surrounding the GNU GPL and free software licensing, and enforcing the license on FSF-copyrighted software."

"Today the GNU GPL is the most widely used Free Software license, and as its author, the FSF works to help the wider community use and comprehend it."

And much more to the effect that they authored the GPL and promote it as their primary license for free software. So yes, in establishing their stance on restrictions that are a part of what they call "free software", the GPL is absolutely pertinent.

- 70.69.42.228 07:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can see what you're trying to say. You're objecting to the "little or no restriction" because you view the requirement to share-and-share-alike as being more than a "little" restriction. But this article has to explain what defines free software, not the implementation of the current top licence. I've reworded the intro, what do you think? Gronky 22:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work - it captures the issue without being judgemental. RossPatterson 22:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's explicit enough. This isn't an advertising page for the FSF, this is an encyclopedia article which should present the facts in an impartial and unbiased way. I do understand the concern that stating the FSF's official definition without any rewording is only fair, but a following statement of fact about their implementation is also in order. I'll try to work with what you've written, but I must insist on presenting facts about their free software license, not just the ideological niceties that they would have people hear. 70.69.42.228 23:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticising copyleft is not the way to start an article which a normal person can understand. When someone arrives at the first paragraph, the often won't know that free software works by granting rights through licences, so that has to be explained first. They also often won't know how these freedoms are usually blocked, and thus why licences are necessary at all. So that also has to be explained first. I'll try again. (BTW, if you intend sticking around, it would be good to make an account.) Gronky 14:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I tried to stay within the topic of defining free software, but I have mentioned the requirements which copyleft places on distributor, and mentioned that copyleft is oft-debated. Howzat? (And RossPatterson, I hope I haven't changed the spirit of the content too much and that you also still think it's fitting, or more comments are welcome.) Gronky 14:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but wikipedia isn't a place for sanitized POV articles. It's a place for journalistic, brutally accurate articles written from a neutral point of view, and presenting all pertinent facts, covering all sides of a subject. If you're going to continually censor and sanitize the introduction to this article so that it sounds like advertising for the FSF, we're going to have to have this mediated. The introduction should accurately present both(all) sides of the subject, in factual, objective terms, rather than being a one-sided ideological definition from which absolutely no meaningful or tangible fact can be derived. Your writing is no better than saying "the republican party is a party that supports freedom, economic growth, and strong foreign policy," it's not factually based or tangibly meaningful, it can mean anything. Also, I have no obligation to create an account, and that's not your concern. 70.69.42.228 23:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making an account has benefits: WP:ACCOUNT. Go to the mods if you like, but think before taking up their time. Gronky 15:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten a significant portion of the introduction. Maybe we can agree to rework/work around any hard facts, but not to remove them, and to only add hard facts, rather than any ideological, subjective, or speculative commentary. I've also added references to other articles that define terms like software, source code, and license. I think that's preferable to defining the terms here. 70.69.42.228 00:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not remove hard facts? I wrote an explanation what the perceived problem is, how copyright law creates the perceived problem, and how software licences fix it - and you removed that information and replaced it with an intro which talks about the GPL before the reader has any idea of what a software licence is or why one is necessary. Your version lets wikilinks suffice to explain the details and instead focuses on your reasons for disagreeing with the word "free" being used in the term. Read what you've written and imagine you don't know what source code is, what software licences are - it's senseless. Or imagine a reader who wouldn't know how to exercise most of those freedoms anyway and who therefore isn't able to see that he/she doesn't have those freedoms - if they ask the question "Sure, amn't I free to do those things with Microsoft Windows?". You're version tells that person nothing. I agree with all your "lets write a brutally accurate article etc. etc." statements, but lets also try to inform the reader of what the article is about. Gronky 15:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the arrangement of the introduction to try to reflect what you're describing, with an explanation of the issue leading into the FSF's stance and methodology, and followed by some possible implications. I've also tried to keep it factual and POV, rather than sounding as if it supports or opposes the FSF, though what is/is not POV can be difficult to define. Let's see if we can make this thing mutually satisfactory. 70.69.42.228 18:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem 1

There're still problems. The first problem is a good example: the article now starts by saying that certain freedoms are hampered... but this is not an article about the current state of software freedoms in the early 21st century, this is an article about free software. It should start by saying what free software is, then it should go on to give the details of how software exists as free software today and the history of how it existed in the past. Said another way: it should introduce the topic, and then explain the context the topic exists in, rather than explaining the context and inserting the topic at an arbitrary point. These are not issues of POV, this is just about how to make a well-written article. Gronky 15:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How ironic. I originally wrote it the way you describe, starting with a free software definition. You complained that there was no context and the reader would be confused, so I moved some of your contextualizing statements into places they shouldn't be in order to accommodate your writing style and seek some compromise here, and now you're using it as an excuse to completely revert my edits. Maybe you should have reverted to my original version, which didn't have the problem you're referring to. 70.69.42.228 18:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I previously pointed out that you were introducing related topics such as copyleft and the GPL before saying why copright and software licences were involved. The problem that i've labelled "problem 1" is a different problem because "free software" is the topic of the article, it's not a subtopic where the relevance has to be shown to the reader before the subtopic is explained. Gronky 18:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that with the exception of a single sentence, my entire text is focused on the FSF's concept of free software, not on software at no cost. You made various complaints about a lack of technical framing which could leave the reader confused, and that's why I tried to place the relevant information as early as possible. 70.69.42.228 18:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've just made the same mistake again! You've defined "free software" by refering to "proprietary software"! The article cannot assume that the reader knows what "proprietary software" is. You've got you're context all wrong again. Gronky 19:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to solve the problem. 70.69.42.228 19:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem 2

Second problem: you've changed the topic of the article to the words "free" and "software" rather than the term "free software". The combination of the two words can have various meanings, but this article is about the term, this was decided a long time ago after plenty of discussion and the consensus was very strong. The term has one accepted meaning, and the most respected definition is The Free Software Definition, and the definition is listed and discussed there. Gronky 15:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put some thought into this and put things the way I did for a reason. What you seem to want, here, is language control, where wikipedia militantly stands by the assertion that the entire world has/should have only one definition for the term "free software." Pretending that this definition is universal or somehow superior to all others is POV and non-journalistic--it's not wikipedia's role or goal to forcably shape language--but I did make a conscious effort to minimize any discussion of the subject of no-cost software, its history, implications, etc... I did specifically try to keep in mind that this article is about Stallmanist/FSF-style free software, but I also tried not to pretend that this definition is the only existent or valid definition, which I believe is POV. I actually considered your here's the right way to speak and write attitude to be one of the problems with your text that made it sound like POV advertising. 70.69.42.228 18:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedias split articles into topics, and each topic has a title. Software that comes with the freedoms to use, study, modify, copy, and redistribute in modified or unmodified form is one topic. Wikipedia puts that into an article. The title given to that topic is "free software". For a discussion of all meanings that "free" can have in relation to software, a dictionary would be a good place. The people who run Wikipedia even host such a dictionary: Wiktionary. Gronky 18:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article can be about free software without being written from the perspective that free software is the one true definition. This article should be about the FSF's definition, but it shouldn't be POV in the sense of asserting or alluding to that definition being universally correct. Maybe someone somewhere has a definition of "free software" that refers to free floating pieces of data storage that have made their way into orbit by way of damaged space craft, and we could have an article that documents that concept and usage, but obviously we wouldn't say "free software means free floating .." We would say "Nasa's jet propulsion labs often use the term free software in reference to .." if we're being journalistic. 70.69.42.228 18:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no one true definition. FSF have a definition, and it's the main one. Debian also have a definition. And Open Source Initiative also have a definition (in which they refer to free software as "open source software"). The important thing is that there is a generally accepted definition. This article is about the generally accepted definition, and one person or ten people who have ideas of floating software does not change that the general definition of free software is software which can be copied, modified, etc. etc. If you find another definition, it can go in another article (although it will probably be deleted for failing wikipedia's "not notable" criteria). Gronky 19:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here's probably a clearer explanation. The article starts off by saying "Free software is a term...". A term. Big software, blue software, great software, and mega software are not terms, they are phrases or description. Free software, when talking about the adjective which could mean no-cost plus the word "software", is in that same category, it's a phrase or a description. This article is not about that, it is about the term. The term refers to the general definition, which is software with the freedoms to.... etc. Gronky 19:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you go to write an encyclopedia, dictionary, or other journalistic publication, you don't choose sides. You don't suggest, promote, or enforce practice or lifestyle, you simply provide neutral, factual documentation of what people and things exist, are doing, and have been or done. The assertion that the meaning assigned to "free software" by Richard Stallman and the FSF is somehow better or worse than other meanings may or may not be a valid point, but it's beyond the scope of a journalistic publication or record of fact to try to draw a subjective or value-oriented judgment. The subject of this article is documenting the facts of a specific definition, but it's not the place of the article to take a side and promote a usage or practice. 70.69.42.228 19:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FSF's definition is the generally accepted definition of the term "free software". The other definitions that exist are all based on FSF's and are all very similar or practically identical. These are facts, not value judgements. Gronky 19:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A search for free software on google yields numerous pages that are using the words differently from the FSF's usage. I've seen and heard many usages, and in my experience, references to software that has no cost have been the majority. Either way, if you have some facts about statistics, add them, like According to a recent study, 76% of the time north americans use the phrase free software, they're talking about freedom.(ref to study here) However, writing the article in a promotional tone is still inappropriate. 70.69.42.228 19:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the first sentence of your comment, and then read where I explained above about words, terms, encyclopedias, and dictionaries. This is not an article about English usage of North Americans. Gronky 20:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's just an example. It would be up to you to present empirical facts that demonstrate your assertions like FSF's definition is the generally accepted definition of the term "free software". The other definitions that exist are all based on FSF's and are all very similar or practically identical. These are facts, not value judgements. and The term has one accepted meaning, and the most respected definition is The Free Software Definition. 70.69.42.228 20:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem 3

Another problem: FSF believes that derived works are community property? Where did you get that from? This isn't about property, this is about making as much freedom as possible. It's copyright law that says that original authors have an ownership stake in derived works. If third-parties could make small changes and then not pass along the freedoms, the free versions would always be technically inferior to the third-partiy non-free versions. This would be a total failure. This version of the intro lacks basic research. Gronky 15:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got that from the fact that the GPL tells authors what they must/can't do with derived works. The GPL is a copyright-based mechanism, it's based on the concept of the copyright holder agreeing not to sue the public for exercising specific limited rights, rather than being some sort of alternative to copyright, as you seem to be suggesting. Like it or not, the GPL is a part of free software, and law is a part of free software. Free software has an ideological basis, and a working legal basis, and both are a part of the subject of this article. My point may require some rewording, the phrase community property may not be legally or ideologically accurate, but really that's a small semantic issue. The point is that the FSF believes the community is entitled to the source code for derived works. 70.69.42.228 18:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This may be the feeling you get, or it may be what free software reminds you of, but it's neither accurate or encyclopedic. What is community property? It's just something you made up. Does this neologism of yours apply to physical property? State-granted monopolies such as copyrights and patents? Or all those things? How is this property shared in the community, do people take turns? This new analogy you're introducing adds nothing and just confuses. Lets cut out the interpretations and stick to facts. Gronky 18:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree(d), the term community property is probably not ideal, and I've rephrased in response to your concern. 70.69.42.228 18:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem 4

Yet another problem: GPL prohibits distibution of the software in any format that doesn't include source code? Tell me the section of the GPL that prohibits that, please. If you distribute a non-source form, you have to distribute source code simultaneously (not necessarily together with the non-source form, it could be on a seperate CD), OR you can make the source available for download, OR you can accompany the non-source form with a offer, valid for 3 years, to send the source to the recipient by mail. Again, this version lacks basic research. Gronky 15:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. You're right that they don't need to be bundled. I wasn't very clear 70.69.42.228 18:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem 5

Fifth problem: "the largest distinction between free software and open source software." You're joking, right? Or do you not know that the GPL is an open-source licence as well as being a free software licence? Open Source Initiative have approved it. You clearly are highly motivated, which is good, but this article is about a topic you clearly don't know much about. Those five problems I've listed and explained are not the only problems, but because of those five, I'll revert to the last version of the intro that I wrote. Can you tell me what parts you see problems with? Maybe I can explain them, and maybe the article can benefit from some testing if you can point out what parts needs to be made clearer. Gronky 15:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's like saying the largest distinction between lemon juice and lemonade is the addition of sugar and water. Once again, this is a minor semantic issue, and if it's even unclear or problematic at all, and enough to warrant a change, the addition of a single word could clarify the issue. Finding five small, fixable, largely semantic problems is not an excuse to revert the edit. It's an excuse to fix those problems. Can you tell me what parts you see problems with? Yes, your introduction provided almost no discernable or specific fact and was written from the perspective of promoting the FSF's ideology and presenting it as factual, rather than taking a journalistic approach and trying to document the FSF's ideas in the context of being one set of ideas in a larger world context. An encyclopedia article should be a journalistic documentation of fact. It should aid in learning about what exists in the world, in hard and factual terms, and every line should be provable in a court of law. If you look up an article on christianity, you don't expect it to be written from the perspective that the ideology is factual, like "Jesus is the son of god, and someone who performed miracles. Believing in Jesus can ensure that you go to heaven when you die." You expect it to be written from a journalistic perspective. As much as wikipedia may utilize and embrace "copylefting" and other freedom oriented practices, it's still an encyclopedia project, even when it comes to articles about freedom-focused ideologies. Rather than either restoring my own original rewrite, or the version where I first made an effort to resolve your complaints, or removing the 9/10 of your text that is POV and/or unprovable, I'm going to restore my last edit, and try to resolve more of your concerns. If you have concerns like "it's not community property, it's a community right to the source", I would ask that you simply fix the problem (though I'm going to fix that one). Also, if I censored/overlooked anything that you were trying to say before (I consciously tried to relate each of the few facts that you have mentioned), please simply add that, or work in parts of your own text. Right now we have two (or three including the version before you rewrote it) major versions, and only one has been written from the start, and then further edited to incorporate the other author's concerns, so I would ask that you take the time to make your voice further heard in that version, as I'll be trying to do for a third time today in the hope of seeing both of our ideas sufficiently represented that we can both voluntarily agree on a single version. 70.69.42.228 18:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I reverted, I tried to start from your version, but I found that it had no redeeming qualities. It was beyond redemption. It was badly organised, unclear, and it showed lack of basic understanding of the topic. So I explained five mistakes that you made, and now you reply by saying: "Can you tell me what parts you see problems with?" I just told you. From the other side, you haven't pointed out precisely what mistakes you see in previous versions. You talk about being "brutally accurate", and "like it or not...", and you call my edits "POV", but you don't say what parts are problematic. You just keep repeating your accusations. Gronky 19:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, my version actually incorporated various parts of your version, and I've now twice edited a series of new concerns and points of yours into it. My version isn't really "my" version, it's not what I would have composed on my own, it's a composite of both of our ideas and concerns. It's also specifically written according to the guidelines of neither promoting or opposing the FSF's definition (NPOV), and relating only provable fact. I can prove that the FSF says certain things, but I can't prove that users are actually entitled to certain freedoms, or that their definitions are correct or incorrect, or any other subjective or value-oriented point. We have one version here that's a compromise, and that's centered around empirical fact. You haven't been censored here, your ideas and concerns have been incorporated from the start and then further integrated, in spite of your apparent total disinterest in mutual representation. I ask that you respect the fact that your ideas are no more or less pertinent than mine, and that you understand that a resolution to our disagreement has to come in the form of a version that incorporates both of our ideas. 70.69.42.228 19:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if your version incorporates parts of my version or not. We're here to write an article that's informative, correct, and understandable, not to write an article that includes text by any specific persons. You can't prove that people are entitled to certain rights? So what? What's that got to do with this discussion? No ones' version said that users were entitled to certain rights. And "you haven't been censored here" - I never said I had been! What are you talking about? You're comments here are incomprehensible. The ideas you've tried to add are insufficiently pertinent because they contained factual errors that I have pointed out, they were based on concepts that we can't assume the read is familiar with, and they used vague, incomplete analogies. And lastly, no, the resolution doesn't have to contain text or ideas from my version or from your version - this is an encyclopedia, not an exercise in compromise. Gronky 19:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you'd rather have this mediated, then so be it, but otherwise we'll have to find a way to resolve our disagreement. You have concerns with what I wrote, I have concerns with what you wrote. Resolving our concerns is a matter of compromise. So long as you want to add something factual, or remove something unprovable, you have a right to be heard, and I want to accommodate you. Also, if you have quality concerns, then you have a right to be heard. However, I do have my opinion, too, as do others, and within the definition of composing an encyclopedic article, I also have a right to be heard. 70.69.42.228 19:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]