Portal talk:FSF/Introduction
FLOSS[edit]
I for one have never even heard of FLOSS, theres NO way its the "most widely used"
Substantial rewrite[edit]
I did a very substantial rewrite of this portal intro page. Before doing so, I looked at this Talk page, but saw that it was not active, so I decided to be be bold. In addition to Wikifying the intro page to conform to the WP:MOS, adding links, and correcting a few, I saw that some language needed to be clarified. For example, free software is not really a type of software; rather, the term refers to software that comes with a license that gives users (really licnesees) the broad rights that are stated. Also free software is not distinguished by granting the right to run the software: all software licenses do that. What distinguises free software, in this respect, is that The Free Software Definition (and also the open source definition) specifies that the licensee must grant the right to run the software for any purpose, in contrast to some software licenses restrict the authorized uses (although the legality of some of these restrictions may be open to challenge). Also, since the text of the intro inculudes open source software, I changed the More about target to the more inclusive Free and open source software article. Of course, I welome discussion of these changes. Finell (Talk) 15:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
American versus English spelling[edit]
Before I did a substantial rewrite of this page on April 25, 2009, there no words with identifiably American or British spellings. My edit introduced the words license and authorizes, which are American English spellings. It was not a political act; it is just the spelling that I normally use. If I had seen British English used consistently on the page, I would have used British spellings in compliance with the WP:ENGVAR guideline. AGK later changed the correct American spelling of "authorizes" to the British "authorises", but did not change "license".[1] Then Gronky changed "license" to the British spelling "license".[2] This topic does not have strong national ties to a country where British English is spoken. Therefore, under the WP:RETAIN guideline, the original American English spellings should not have been changed.—Finell 19:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Concerning the image change[edit]
Kb333 has changed the image to a FSF specific one, which I have reverted. As I said in my edit summary, free software is not solely defined by FSF, so the use of the FSF's logo is not ideal here. - Aoidh (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe that's your own spamming POV, "free software" is defined by the FSF solely as what "open source" is defined by the OSI ... "free software" definition is different from "open source". 197.27.60.67 (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- That article is a "free software" article: FOSS means free as in beer "open source", not essentially free as in freedom: so the use of its logo is wrong here: that is the reason of changing it to a more appropriate one. 197.27.61.31 (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- a new portal was created for the "free as in beer" and "open source" software aka FOSS or OSS, so the removed nonfree(as in freedom) software from this article should be part of the new portal instead of this one. Fsfolks (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Free software does just equal GNU and FSF and no one else's opinion counts. The use of the GNU logo is not appropriate and the removal of references to Mozilla and such is pure FSF POV-pushing. The recent changes have turned this into nothing more than FSF propaganda. - Ahunt (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- So, what's the solution? should we change the definition erroneously, and pointing to "open source" instead? you are like to ask people to change the white color to black, and that's absolutely not appropriate: as I said "Free software" is a matter of freedom, it's widely used and have its own communities not just FSF one, so it's not just an "FSF POV", and it is different from "FOSS"(free as in beer): "open source" was a different movement which started after the free software movement, and have been different. The reason of the removal of Mozilla references is justified: it's not an FSF POV: it's simply because the trademark license of Mozilla suite restricts its distribution in several ways: which is incompatible with freedom 0 and thus makes the Mozilla suite a wrong example of free software: that's what made the Debian project, which is independent from the FSF, create its Ice suite: as free software alternative. So is all that too difficult to understand? Fsfolks (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- You are defining free software strictly as the FSF does. There are other people and organizations that define it differently. For instance Mozilla considers their products free software. Wikipedia does not exist to promote FSF objectives anymore than it exists to promote Boeing or Ford Motors objectives. - Ahunt (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- You seem to be pushing your POV against the FSF and trying to generalize it without discussing things: that's an attacking behaviour, and you need to stop it. Wikipedia also does not exist to promote Bruce Perens and OSI objectives against the FSF ones. Mozilla restricts any modified versions from their own software to use the same logo if not approved by them(which created the adoption issue by Debian through being unable to apply non-approved patches): do you want that Mozilla control the way how do you use their software instead of you? that's why people started creating alternatives with different logos: like Ice suite and GNUZilla. Moreover, Firefox recommends nonfree addons and plugins: does running proprietary plugin like adobe flash player respects your freedom? That's the reason what made many people considering Mozilla software as nonfree software: even if Mozilla community describe itself as free(it's their own pov and not true). Fsfolks (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Your POV is showing. - Ahunt (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- My POV is clear: I want that "free software" still be defined "free software" as what it name means (free as in freedom/speech) and not be confused with other non-related terms, I'm not trying to sabotage other people or attacking them. Once again, That's a "free as in freedom software" and not a "free as in beer / open source software" portal: this is not the right place for the software that doesn't respect the user's four essential freedoms, the new portal is the more appropiate one for such software. Fsfolks (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Your POV is showing. - Ahunt (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- You seem to be pushing your POV against the FSF and trying to generalize it without discussing things: that's an attacking behaviour, and you need to stop it. Wikipedia also does not exist to promote Bruce Perens and OSI objectives against the FSF ones. Mozilla restricts any modified versions from their own software to use the same logo if not approved by them(which created the adoption issue by Debian through being unable to apply non-approved patches): do you want that Mozilla control the way how do you use their software instead of you? that's why people started creating alternatives with different logos: like Ice suite and GNUZilla. Moreover, Firefox recommends nonfree addons and plugins: does running proprietary plugin like adobe flash player respects your freedom? That's the reason what made many people considering Mozilla software as nonfree software: even if Mozilla community describe itself as free(it's their own pov and not true). Fsfolks (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- You are defining free software strictly as the FSF does. There are other people and organizations that define it differently. For instance Mozilla considers their products free software. Wikipedia does not exist to promote FSF objectives anymore than it exists to promote Boeing or Ford Motors objectives. - Ahunt (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- So, what's the solution? should we change the definition erroneously, and pointing to "open source" instead? you are like to ask people to change the white color to black, and that's absolutely not appropriate: as I said "Free software" is a matter of freedom, it's widely used and have its own communities not just FSF one, so it's not just an "FSF POV", and it is different from "FOSS"(free as in beer): "open source" was a different movement which started after the free software movement, and have been different. The reason of the removal of Mozilla references is justified: it's not an FSF POV: it's simply because the trademark license of Mozilla suite restricts its distribution in several ways: which is incompatible with freedom 0 and thus makes the Mozilla suite a wrong example of free software: that's what made the Debian project, which is independent from the FSF, create its Ice suite: as free software alternative. So is all that too difficult to understand? Fsfolks (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Free software does just equal GNU and FSF and no one else's opinion counts. The use of the GNU logo is not appropriate and the removal of references to Mozilla and such is pure FSF POV-pushing. The recent changes have turned this into nothing more than FSF propaganda. - Ahunt (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)