Talk:Commercial software

message: The article needs to include software that isn't available for sale in traditional ways, but is still used for commercial purposes.  The pairing of advertisement with Internet services is an example.
"Commercial purposes" is now included in the intro. --69.54.29.23 16:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sold equals Commercial? 

message: Aside from the fact that this article cites no sources, I'm not sure that it makes sense to have this article at all.  "Commercial software" does not have a single unified meaning, and the meanings that it does have are those you would come up with by interpreting the two words separately.  This should probably be made a disambiguation page with links to the equally vague categories of Intellectual property, Software licensing, Proprietary software, Business software, and stuff like that.  Of course, that will create a big disambiguation problem, but presumably that will get us closer to an encyclopedic article.  Alternatively, if there is a meaningful, and documented, article waiting to be written, someone can do that. Dpv 19:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a fine solution.  Linking off to software is not.  Other wikipedia articles need to link to "commercial software" for issues like licensing discussions without creating a huge distraction.  They need a link out page to an encyclopedia definition + further links.  The discussion from March where "commercial software" is being used to mean software for commerce is (AKAIK) a minority usage of the term and not the primary usage. jbolden1517Talk 15:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Is that proposed redirect (Proprietary software acceptable?  jbolden1517Talk 22:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No.  See the discussion further below, and Gronky's suggestion of Business software instead. RossPatterson 00:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Why do we have this article? Come on… didn't you see that's its sole purpose is GNU propaganda? Just look at this joke in the article: “While less common than commercial proprietary software, free and open-source software may also be commercial software”. And they are saying this when the purpose of the GPL is precisely to make it impossible. Note: if you are worried about the lack of neutrality of this article and the one about proprietary software, you should see the French version of Wikipedia, it's even worse. I see the affinity for this kind of propaganda on Wikipedia, as a consequence of Wikipedia's assertion that if it's free as in beer, that's good, otherwise, that's bad. There is a bias bound to Wikipedia which make it subject to this kind of lack of neutrality. --Hibou57 (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I forget to mention that additionally, the article prove it self dishonest propaganda, as it contradicts it‑self: after it tries to redirect people from commercial software to “free” (as in beer) software, not without that joke that “free” (as in beer) software can be commercial software, it contradicts itself one more time, saying later (I cite) “This made commercialization of software for the mass market in the beginning of the computing era **impossible**”. Big LOL … typical Wikipedia propaganda which does not even see it contradicts it‑self (well, many argue Wikipedia has no obligations to be coherent … indeed, any one can witness it). Hibou57 (talk) 08:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do we have this article? 

message: You've only proven my point.  It is used incorrectly.  I've fixed many articles that use "commercial software" when I think the intention was "proprietary software".  I'm not suprised there are some that still exist.  I hate to do reducto ad Google, but http://www.google.com/search?q=%22commercial+software%22+site%3Aslashdot.org+OR+site%3Amicrosoft.com --69.54.29.23 20:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one ever contested that the words are used.  The issue is that they do not form a term.  Any google search comparison will show that "red pencils" is a set of words that has been used on the Internet, but that does not make "red pencils" a topic. Gronky 23:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some comment

message: I've rarely have heard the word payware but for all intents and purposes commercial software and payware are the same. I suggest Payware article to merged into this article.
Fleet Command (talk) 08:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, doing. ~ 10nitro (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  In over a decade since this decision was made, I disagree with "seldom payware". I hear it all the time. I hear it from newscasters, I hear it from online developers, I hear it in the computing space altogether. Whether the merger should have happened, I don't know. But I disagree that payware is an infrequent term.Nuvigil (talk) 07:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal - Payware 

message: I think what we should differentiate is Standard software or Custom made software as the first general point. 
So the first level is Software and under it Standard software and Custom made software. 
The general idea is to create Standard software wikipedia-title, is Software made for multiple number of independet users, while Custom made software is designed for one user or specific user group. Standard software should be pointed out has nothing to do with software standard that is something completely different. 
The Standard software group will have under it proprietary software or open-source software but also commercial software or free software. Because all are Standard software but with huge difference in the major basic characteristics (four distict kind of SW in combination of the four) and none are valid aspects of Custom made software. It all might be the same article with different chapters and under-sections. 
I think the first step is to rename this article Standard software!
I think that is a much better solution.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.247.9.228 (talk) 04:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: While such a top level ontology indeed might make sense, unless you can cite a credible reference to such a definition this cannot be done. See Wikipedia:No original research. Also, commercial software and free software are not antonyms, indeed, a lot of free software is commercial. You probably meant gratis software, as in no cost. Palosirkka (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard Software is a much better title 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Commercial 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/20091010195844/https://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/01/the_five_open_s.html to http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/01/the_five_open_s.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://standishgroup.com/newsroom/open_source.php
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) 17:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified