Portal talk:Free and open-source software/Terminology

content dispute

I'm starting this discussion because no one wants to compromise my changes on this page [1]: I'm trying to better explain: the previous revision before this edit doesn't contain any reliable source to prove such software was all free/libre: the Free Software licensing didn't exist before the GNU Project and the FSF movement: for example there is no clear licensing terms inside TinyBasic(which was released before the free software movement ) [2] source code which grants 4 essentiasl freedoms: it seems like to be licensed under the "No License" [3] which is classified as a nonfree software license. I think that my edit is justified for that reason. Fsfolks (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've going to have to explain yourself more clearly. The above makes no sense. There was certainly "free software" before Stallman, and I mean free as in freedom, not beer. You just have to go back before the PC age. In fact, if you've bothered to read Stallman at all, he created the free software movement to encourage a return to a previous philosophy. So I expect that even if you can explain yourself better, what you have to say will still not be at all true. Using "TinyBasic" as an example is misguided, and examples prove nothing. Get thee to a source. Skyerise (talk) 06:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about libre software, not gratis as well as you are. But, all what you are saying is still POV: and you still don't have any reliable source which can prove what you are saying is true. Fsfolks (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]