Talk:Alternative terms for free software

message: Additions to this list are welcome.
The contents of the "timeline" section should be kept as thin as possible.  Put another way, information should be inserted by topic rather than by term.  For example: "FLOSS" can be translated into other languages. This information should be in a section about the use of these terms in non-English languages, or about the political correctness of these terms. Gronky 22:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improving this article

message: I've merged much of the useful material (of which, there was quite a bit) in this article to its main article, free software.  (Although, this page wasn't linked to by the latter free software article, until recently, and I've since removed the link).   Therefore, this page is probably worth deleting.  I'd appreciate if folks could double-check my work to see if there's any more material that should be merged with free software.  Then we can move on to proposals to figure out what to do with this page. --65.19.87.53 18:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlap with free software? 

message: I already explained some of these problems at the free software portal. --Easyas12c 13:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll reply there. Gronky 17:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most of these so called ''alternative terms'' define broader concepts. 

message: I was unaware of this discussion. Some additional points and, I hope, clarifications:
* The earliest widely distributed version of my MITRE report containing the acronym FOSS in its title was April 5, 2002. That is about two months after the Amiga Games usenet mention of F/OSS mentioned earlier.
* The subsequent nearly one-year delay in the final publication of the report had far more to do with the Washington Post and other entities getting wind of it than it with the completeness of the report as of early 2002. The unexpected attention necessitated both a very thorough internal review and more exploration of licensing options before the report was publicly released by DISA on their main web site in early 2003. And no, to the best of my knowledge the report is not on the DISA site anymore. However, since it was the very first link on their main web as of roughly mid 2003, I'm pretty sure its presence there could be verified easily by someone with archival web access.
* I was not tracking Amiga Games usenet groups, and was certainly unaware of the above email or of any other similar emails, nor of the acronym F/OSS from any other forum.
* Given in particular the slight differnce in their forms, my best surmise is that F/OSS and FOSS were simply parallel acronyms developed at about the same time. There is also a very slight chance that the F/OSS usage does somehow trace back by word-of-mouth (or word-of-email) transmission to my acronym from very early 2002. However, the odds of that drop to zero if F/OSS was in use in December 2001, since I had not yet begun working on the report at that time.
* Regarding one earlier edit of this web page in which someone suggested that FOSS was actually derived from FLOSS, I had never heard of the FLOSS acronym until an early reviewer of my report tried to persuade me to use it in place of FOSS. I rejected the idea, noting that to me the acronym FLOSS just sounded "too dental"... 8^)
* Whenever I come up with what are (for me) new phrases or acronyms, I normally perform a due-diligence searching for both unwanted collisions and prior use. For FOSS I don't recall getting any matching hits on my search other than some use of Foss as a family name and other non-acronym uses. As evidence of that I take such searches seriously, when I developed the phrase "software cooperatives" to describe a concept and to serve as the title of a paper I did on the economics behind FOSS, my Google searches uncovered an earlier semantically identical use of the phrase by R. McOrmond. Although I had not relied on his work, and indeed had not even been aware of his existence until my paper was nearly done, I added him as the first reference in my paper to acknowledge his prior creation of both the concept and the phrase.
* Googling now (05:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FOSS 

message: There is some discussion of merging Free and Open Source Software and possibly Free/Libre/Open-Source Software to this page.  However, this particular title seems biased toward "free software" rather than "open source software" (this is not, after all, "Alternative terms for open source software").  This is a bit ironic, considering both F/OSS and FLOSS were somewhat intended to take the middle ground.  Is there a way we can combine all three articles into a NPOV one?  Is there some better title for this article & could the way that it is framed be improved? --Karnesky 03:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest Terms for free or open source software with redirects from either choice. It's not ideal but it's the only title that avoids taking sides. Using "or" makes it obvious that we're not proposing a new term, just listing the two main ones. --200.6.242.106 22:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias/POV fork? 

message: The term "libre software" goes back far before 2000.  It was proposed on the gnu.misc.discuss mailing list/newsgroup back in the mid-to-late 1990s.  It never caught on broadly, but it's had its advocates since those days (including me).  Google groups might have those references somewhere in their newsgroup archives, if someone wanted a tiny research project. Xtifr 20:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This might help: Quo vadis, libre software? by Jesús M. González-Barahona - Kim Tucker (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  libre software 

message: If it's "free as in freedom," why not call it freedom software? 165.230.129.135 17:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freedom software 

message: The "Suggested names" section badly needs cleanup (and some attention to WP:VERIFY) This sentence particularly seems suspect (emphasis added): 
Stallman endorses the terms Free/Libre/Open-Source Software ("FLOSS") and Free and Open Source Software ("F/OSS") to refer to "open source" and "free software" respectively, without necessarily choosing between or dividing the two camps, but he asks people to consider supporting the "free software" camp.
The use of "respectively" makes this claim that Stallman endorses "FLOSS" to refer to "open source" software and "F/OSS" to refer to "free software". It seems more likely that the intent here is to state that Stallman endorses the use of either "FLOSS" or "F/OSS" to refer to the category which includes both "free software" and "open source software". Certainly, that makes more sense with the part of the sentence following "respectively". Cmdicely 17:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Names Section

message: There was a suggestion on the Talk page of the FLOSS article that FLOSS be merged into this article. Gronky 11:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  There was only one paragraph of non-duplicate content, so I moved it here.  I moved the external links that are about software to the free software article, and I moved the external links about events to the free software community article.  I also did a bit of a review of this article and removed some duplicate content. Gronky 14:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested merge in of FLOSS 

message: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Ffr.wiktionary.org%2Fwiki%2Flibre&langpair=fr%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools
ie. One valid synonym of "libre" is "gratuit" which means "gratis".
ie. It seems to have the exact same problem as the English word "free".
--irrevenant [ talk ] 03:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Libre can be a synonym for gratuit only in certain situations.  For example, many shops in French speaking countries have a sign outside saying "Entrée libre" - which means that anyone is free to enter, entry is available to everyone.  In that sense, "gratuit" is implied, and so is synonymous.  (Actually, maybe wiktionary is wrong since shops might not charge, but might have a discriminatory entrance policy.)  There is no good English translation for these signs because in English speaking countries, it's taken for granted that anyone can enter a shop - so having a sign indicates there is some strange policy.  It's often translated as "Free Entry", but I think it would be better if they said "C'mon in!", or "Welcome to Pierre's". Gronky 10:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libre also = gratis in French?  (According to Wiktionary) 

message: The article currently says in the intro that not choosing a side between FS and OSS was one of the motivations for coining FOSS and FLOSS - someone has added a "citation needed" tag.  Does anyone know of a reference for this claim?  I'm sure it's true, but it does need to be backed up. Gronky 17:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Got a cite for motivations of FOSS and FLOSS? 

message: I've removed the uncited statement about not wanting to take sides in the FS vs OSS debate being a motivation for the FOSS and FLOSS terms.  I'm pretty sure it's true, but I don't have a cite.  The good news is that that was the only remaining "citation needed" tag in the article, so the article is now free from such tags, for now.  Gronky 13:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007-03-14: No "citation needed" tags now 

message: I strongly object to the identification of FOSS and FLOSS as being equivalent with free software.
The concepts are legally much different and, in fact, the differences are quite significant.
Microsoft has tried to stifle free and open source software, and it is only through strict legal definitions of the terms by the framers of licenses for open source software that collaborative software (able to be shared) will be able to withstand the onslaught of Microsoft.
It is important not to belittle the efforts of Microsoft to legally constrain open source software through language, the weapon of lawyers.
:Can you point us to any of these legal definitions?  I'm not aware of any body that has legal definitions for more than one of these terms. Gronky 17:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal ramifications of terms 

message: If someone arrives here from clicking a "FOSS" link, MediaWiki automatically displays "(Redirected from FOSS)" just under the title.  So the recently added "FOSS links here" statement at the top of the article is redundant, no? Gronky 08:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "FOSS links here" 

message: It has been suggested that the licences section be merged into the free software and free software licences articles.  Looking at the section, I can see that it doesn't clearly related to the terms, so I will try to fix this by more clearly linking the information about licence to the terms.  Would that fix it? Gronky 08:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Licences section 

message: FYI: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Free_and_open_source_software
--Gronky 13:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afd: [[Free and open source software]] 

message: discuss a merger at
Talk:Free_and_open_source_software#Merge_FS_.2B_OSS_here Lentower 01:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Result of AfD was '''Keep'''

message: Alternative terms for free software should be merged into free and open source software. The target article is an objective examination of a broad set of software with similar copyright terms. The current article is a subjective examination which takes the disputed view that all such terms are simply "alternative terms" for the existing "free software" concept. While the various names given to different branches of the subject are worth examining, this is better done in the context of an examination of the whole rather than as a separate article with objectivity issues. --10:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: * Support as nom. All previous discussion points to this being the right call. Were the current article split from free and open source software today, it'd be an obvious POV fork. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support 

message: *Oppose The target article's subject matter and scope are unclear.  The target article also has practically no content that could be "merged", and has shown no signs of evolution over the past months.  The current article has a well-defined subject matter and it's content is wholly on-topic.  That the term "free software" was in use for 15 years before the appearance of any of these alternative names is simply a fact.  Contradicting this would be misrepresenting history. --Gronky (talk) 12:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose 

message: * This is a large enough topic that it probably justifies a separate article.  However, I agree that this article can be cleaned up & made to have less bias.  "Open source," despite being a newer term, is in very common usage & moving this page to "Other terms for free and open source software" might be reasonable.  The text of the article would need to be made similarly agnostic.  I don't think a merge is the best way to clean this up.  --Karnesky (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other comments 

message: Some of those who oppose a merge (SmokeyJoe and NicM in particular) have expressed a similar concern about the name of this article as those who support a merge.  Since there is no consensus on a merge, is there something else we can just call this article? ---Karnesky (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: The intro says that alternative terms were sought so as to avoid the cost/liberty ambiguity.  That's true, but it's only one reason.  OSI and RMS also agree there was a second reason: businesses didn't want computer users to start evaluating software in terms of freedom; they wanted to present free software as a technical issue, not a social issue.
OSI say they wanted to "dump the moralizing ... [and] sell the idea strictly on the same pragmatic, business-case grounds" (cut out the moral aspect, cut out anything that isn't a business-case).
Stallman also says it was to "freedom and community, on human rights for software users. "Open source" was founded in 1998 as a way to stop talking about those things" 
I'll re-add this point and add those references. --Gronky (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Note, though, that it was an ATTITUDE that what would later become the OSI spoke against: "dump the moralizing and confrontational attitude."  No where in that link does it discuss liberty. --Karnesky (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: [replacing my original reply] Ok, I see you're point.  OSI indeed do not specify "liberty", so you're right that WP cannot say that.  All WP can say is that OSI rejected of the previous advocacy (FSF's), that they decided to advocate free software strictly on business-case arguments, that they didn't advocate that computer users should be free, and that RMS says their goal was to surpress talk of liberty.  I'll try to come up with a concise wording for that (tomorrow). --Gronky (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  To avoid talk of liberty 

message: I've a hard time believing that the term Libre Software wasn't used until as late as 2000.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnan (talk • contribs) 13:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Article Libre traces it back to at least 1995 via http://archive.is/aRfD - Kim Tucker (talk) 10:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  dates 

message: The OSI credits Chris Peterson for coining the term "Open source" back in 1998, but Bill Joy, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, had been using the "Open source" label all the way back in 1984. At http://www.archive.org/details/UNIX1985 you can hear them use the term "open source code" when discussing Berkley Unix 4.2, at approximately 13 minutes and 50 seconds into the show. This show was published in January of 1985.
NJB (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who coined the term Open source? 

message: the name "Alternative terms for free software" seems to advocate usage of "free software" above the other terms by claiming that they are just that: alternative. In addition, some of the sources also appear to be heavily biased in FSF's favor (e.x. one of them was titled "Make Your Open Source Software GPL-Compatible. Or Else.") Requesting someone review the article for neutrality. Myconix (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I would propose "Terms for Free and open source software" which is already the ecosystem's and even the FSF accepted compromise. Shaddim (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

text: I've removed said template. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keeping a Neutral POV 

message: I think the expansion of the FLOSS acronym should read "Free/Libre and Open Source Software". The "and" is important because it implies both camps (inclusive of 'free software' and 'open source software' to avoid arguments between the two camps). This was part of the rationale for coining the term FLOSS. Leaving out the 'and' implies they are one and the same (not the intention of the acronym FLOSS) --K (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The FLOSS section 

message: Over the years, at least since 2001 (in this thread) if not before, the term "libreware" has cropped up from time to time, and (imo) is worthy of mention in this article. - K (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libreware 

message: Some editors  are pushing the duplication of longstanding examples of alternative terms for free software: I see that this affects the WP:NPOV of the article: so I reverted such edit. Fsfolks (talk) 13:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: How, specifically, do you believe the material violates WP:NPOV? —Psychonaut (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication of longstanding examples 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Alternative terms for free software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20021001164015/http://www.opensource.org/docs/history.php to http://www.opensource.org/history
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://sinetgy.org/jgb/articulos/libre-software-origin/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071216171951/http://ec.europa.eu:80/idabc/en/document/1637/470 to http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/1637/470
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090210083211/http://www.softwarelivre.org:80/news/1727 to http://www.softwarelivre.org/news/1727
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Alternative terms for free software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.wired.com/news/technology/0%2C1282%2C18291%2C00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.naci.org.za/floss/index.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/1637/470
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.softwarelivre.org/news/1727
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060912222653/http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/berry1.pdf to http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/berry1.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Alternative terms for free software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170122063132/http://ostatic.com/blog/the-unlicense-a-license-for-no-license to http://ostatic.com/blog/the-unlicense-a-license-for-no-license
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705212713/http://www.fsf.org.in./ to http://www.fsf.org.in/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100729151135/http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/columns/jargon_freedom_60_words_and_phrases_context to http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/columns/jargon_freedom_60_words_and_phrases_context
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Alternative terms for free software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080612105233/http://archive.salon.com/21st/feature/1998/08/cov_31feature2.html to http://archive.salon.com/21st/feature/1998/08/cov_31feature2.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707061843/http://www.flossproject.org/ to http://flossproject.org/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081228023036/http://www.perens.com/works/speeches/InnovationGoesPublic/Speech/1.html to http://perens.com/works/speeches/InnovationGoesPublic/Speech/1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100110110219/http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This page gives the impression that "alternative terms" for free software include related yet incompatible ideas like open-source. This is a misleading conflation of ideas. 185.217.158.63 (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflation