Talk:Freeware/Archive 1

message: There seems to be a similiar page called Free software. Those two should be merged.
This page has enough detail that it should probably be renamed "Software Licenses."  All subcategories should be given their own pages.  The page for freeware should have less detailed descriptions of each type of non-freeware software.  Aguydude 06:40 Nov 4, 2002 (UTC)
May I suggest adding the term "demo" under shareware/crippleware or as a separate category since that may be a more familiar term? - Brettz9 20:18 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)
: I placed them in a "===-level" section, Related software types, to distinguish them from actual freeware types. --AnOddName 03:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean right now, or before you wrote that comment? ;)  I've seen that before, and bribeware sounds fairly appropriate. michaelb 16:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: old talk

message: I don't think "Beerware" is necessary to include as main class of freeware, as it, at least to me, seems too obscure. Although I've run into all of the other sorts of freeware, I've never seen Beerware, and, quite honestly, it seems to me somewhat absurd and unnecessary to include as a main type of freeware. michaelb 16:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Beerware is silly.  How often is it that you're even in the same TIME ZONE as the person who wrote the software you're using?  (Cult Of Personality 18:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is beerware necessary to include? 

message: It seems like the Freeware Archives section is just a perfect source of people putting their fav freeware site on there.  Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_web_directory, eh?  JesseW 09:31, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and have now deleted these links. Fredrik | talk 16:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Should we have a Freeware Archives section?

message: In my experience, in common usage today among the masses (and, as I understand it, as it was used on BBS networks of old) freeware tends to only refer to freely redistributable software (that is also gratis) as opposed to any software that is free of charge. (Indeed it is questionable whether gratis software can be a category of software at all as not only is its price not part of the nature of the software, but because `software', by definition, refers to the intangible idea itself which is usually avaiable in multiple physical forms at different prices.)
Although, I am also aware that people have probably tried to use the word freeware to mean just about everything (from free software to any software that is in the (non-copyright) public domain); maybe its ambiguity should be made clear on the page.
-- Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley 18:05, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
:You lost me there, guy.  What's all this about free software not being software?  And even more confusing, what does the medium software is/can be delivered on and the price have to do with the definition of software - a set of instructions that performs a meaningful or useful tastk?  (Cult Of Personality 18:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Q1) I said nothing of the kind. (Q2) That was, I think, my point. —Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 01:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree.  I see the word freeware applied to open source all the time.  I think the description presented in the wiki article is archaic at best. 64.174.75.5 21:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of Freeware? 

message: At the top of this article, there was the following disambiguation notice:
::This article refers to software available free of charge.  For "free software" as defined by the Free Software Foundation, see Free software.
I removed it. I think few people will be looking for free as in speech
software here, and someone who is needs only look down to the list of
categories of software distinct from freeware.
- Jrn 07:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I removed it again. I'm going to try to make the distinction clean in the text of the article. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:41, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Now, the disambiguation links are for proprietary software and open-source software.  There's even less ambiguity with those terms, then there is free software. --69.54.29.23 13:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of disambiguation notice 

message: Considering the amount of this article that discusses contrasts between freeware and free software, it seems pretty clear that this article was written by free software advocates who are interested in suggesting that free software is better than freeware.  Since I'm a free software advocate myself and actually believe this, it doesn't bother me too much, nor do I think that the text in the article rises to the level of POV.
However, it would probably be a better article from the point of view of computer history if it discussed the role and history of freeware in computing, in addition to trying to distinguish freeware accurately from other kinds of software.  Much of this article is currently dedicated to a careful statement of what freeware is not. Schoen 05:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that introduction is generally good, but it makes some mis-statements.
*Proprietary does not mean that "somebody owns the copyright, owns the software".  This is true of all software(with the possible exception of software in the public domain).  A better sentence might be "Proprietary means that a single person(or company) controls the software, and only they can change it or distribute it."
*Very few, if any, free software or open-source licenses prevent anyone from selling the software.  The third paragraph is simply incorrect.  A better paragraph might be "The most common restriction present in nearly all open-source and free software licenses are a requirement that the text of the license be included in any copies that are distributed.  The authors of the program are giving the program away for free, so they want everyone who gets a copy to know of their work, and that they gave it away to the community.  The most commonly used open-source/free software license also requires that if you make a program using the software as part of it, you have to provide source code with every copy you distribute.  You can always change it as you like and give or sell as many copies of it to anyone you want."
I'd be happy to provide references and details on any of the claims made above, if requested.  Thanks for all your work on the 'pedia! JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article was seemingly written by Free Software advocates 

message: This glossary might be of use; the site concerned is allied to the alt.comp.freeware Usenet newsgroup. Andy Mabbett 15:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitions

message: In response to
:"As the open source free software is taking over in the Linux world, those who speak about freeware nowadays are usually talking about free software in the Windows world."
I am the maintainer of Linux4Chemistry, which aims to be a comprehensive list of all chemistry software available for Linux. Software is divided into Open Source (having an OSI-approved license, or Public Domain), Freeware (not Open Source but available at no cost to anyone), Free for academics (not Freeware or Open Source), Shareware and Commercial (everyone has to pay).
Despite the claim that open source free software is taking over in the linux world, there are 82 Open Source programs, and about 160 Freeware (some of which may be reclassified as Free for academics, once I get around to it). Note that many of the Freeware programs provide the source; it's just that their licences are not Open Source.
In summary, most of the no cost software in chemistry that runs on Linux is Freeware, and not Open Source. Baoilleach 12:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a good point.  I would support you rephrasing this to a more encyclopedic phrasing, and changing the statement you mentioned to more accurately reflect this.  Thanks for bringing this to our(i.e. anyone who reads this talk page) attention! JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An example case: Freeware in chemistry software for Linux

message: I've tried to rewrite some of this in a more neutral tone. Some of it is still a little untidy, but I can't see anything that's obviously too pov. Is there any part that anyone thinks still needs npov work? (One person can't really decide a npov, obvously enough :) MartinRe 17:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite comments

message: I deleted: Freeware software released without sourcecode is proprietary. Sleigh 15:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sourcecode

message: I removed this from the main page as they currently don't appear to follow the guideline. - brenneman {L}  09:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: There are several external links in the Abandonware article that may be better off in this page, such as Liberated Games (which is about once-propietary, now freeware games), and other. Should we move them over here?Sega381
: They were moved to the List of commercial games released as freeware.Sega381 02:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links from Abandonware 

message: What is the purpose of listing software that used to cost money and now doesn't?  Are these packages notable freeware packages?  They look like old software that is now freeware.  The intro hints that they "were proprietary", but now they aren't.  No, freeware software without the source code is still proprietary. --69.54.29.23 13:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they don't seem very useful or noteworthy. They are actually leftovers from a list that was split, so it probably would be ok to delete that section.Sega381 19:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proprietary software released as freeware 

message: I think the motivations I moved from the bottom of the article to the top are unsubstantiated and proably don't belong in the intro.  However, they don't belong under any other of the headings, and we might as well lead with unsourced statements, rather than ignoring them and putting them at the end of the article, out of sight.  I'm happy with the uncited sentences being deleted, but I'm willing to have somebody verify them. --69.54.29.23 21:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motivations 

message: Hi,
http://www.polishwords.com.pl
This is an international freeware programmers community. No adverticements, no
carges and so on. Please visit and point out your opinions if its worth
adding to this article as an external link.
greatings,
Tom Smykowski
POLAND —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.146.224.10 (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my view it doesn't seem to have enough material to be worth adding as a link. I vote to remove. Aarontay 12:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As for new this group consists of 10 programmers all over the world willing to create and develop freeware applications for no money, it's rather new project but fast groving, and think that it's the first one ever and unique. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.18.236.34 (Tom Smykowski) 09:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tom, as commendable the project is, it just isn't very notable or useful yet for that matter. Aarontay 12:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aarontay, could you please explain what do you mean in the term "isn't useful"? Sites with a freeware list are useful because they give solutions that were created before, we are creating freeware on demand. It's just an unique idea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.18.236.34 (Tom Smykowski) 12:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tom, you might want to learn to sign your comments rather than relying on the bot. Btw it's funny you talk about sites with freeware lists being useful, it's just that your website has literally no content at all right now besides one alarm clock application! And looking at the forum I don't get a sense that the project is even that active. I don't want to get personal but there are lots of people with "unique" ideas (and I don't see what's so unique about this one), but until they actually get off the ground, they are just that an idea. This isn't the place to try to get support for your project. Aarontay 13:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aarontay, it's like you would say: "what a funny singer if he doesn't have any CD published", what you say is just funny. If you don't see anything unique in this idea, please place here some links to other freeware programmers groups, I would like to know them better, but as for now , your comment is just a blah blah blah without any content, best regards, bear007 13:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding external link - Community of freeware programmers 

message: These are marginal cases.  I submit these 2 links for approval by other editors because the web pages where these freeware programs are readily available for download from one source contain ads.
* Freeware Utilities - A vast 30-page list of freeware utilities available for download.
* Misc. Freeware - A vast 30-page list of freeware of various categories available for download.
Please decide and communicate in a timely manner?--AceVentura
: I'm not too wild about adding them, but definitely adding both would be overkill since they are going to the same domain http://www.winsite.com/free/ Aarontay 20:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 external links: freeware at WinSite 

message: * Freeware Files
I have submitted this link previously.  It has been swept aside by edit wars between spammers and freeware extremists.  [I choose NOT to belong to either group.]  I doubt anyone has actually taken a close look at it.  This is the web site where I personally obtained most of the 100+ freeware programs I have and use.  Like ALL other large freeware web sites, it is imperfect.  There are ads in the margins.
1.  This is the largest collection of freeware programs I know of.  It is well-organized by categories and sub-categories.
2.  Every program has a description.  Most programs have at least 1 review.  This web site is indexed and searchable.
3.  NEARLY 100% of the freeware programs listed can be downloaded directly from Freeware Files servers.  [The exceptions may be cases where the developer forbids others from hosting the file.]  The latest versions are almost always listed there.
4.  For most files, 2-3 download options exist since Freeware Files allows the developer and other mirrors to share in providing bandwidth.  This makes it highly unlikely that you will not get your download even if a technical problem exists at your first choice.
5.  All hosted files are free from adware, spyware, viri, etc.
I would like to add this one link.  Please seriously consider it and reply in a timely manner.
-AceVentura
:It's quite a spammy link, by any standard. I fail to see how it differs from the other hundreds of spammy links it will open the doors to. If people want to read about freeware they read an encyclopaedia. If people want to download freeware they should use Google or Dmoz. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice you fail to answer zzuuzz's question about what makes this site that you are pushing for so special, besides the fact that you use it and it hosts files. I use other sites , why should we go for your site? I have no problems with external links that are unique , but freeware download sites are a dime a dozen, none of them really stand out, it's not as if , if the user doesn't use freewarefiles.com and uses something else (say Majorgeeks) it is the end of the world. Plus this whole obsession with sites that host files, what's the deal about that? I would rather download off the original author's site. If you ask me, the value of a freeware listing site is if it provides a real evaluation (not silly 1 paragraph user contributed reviews) and review to help one decide whether it is what one wants. . Aarontay 14:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with User:zzuuzz.  Wikipedia is not the place to post example links on general topics.  You wouldn't post the url to your local chapel's website on the Lutheranism article, no matter how big or notable it is.  The url in question does not add any quality to the article.  Tuxide 19:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: In other words, you mean WP:ALLORNOTHING.  Yes I know what steganography is.  I have books on it, and the urls on that article don't contribute much.  I would expect external links going to appropriate sources that detail the history of steganography, or a picture of some bald guy with some message written on his head.  Tuxide 20:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  external link: Freeware Files 

message: The previous section was becoming too fragmented and  chronologically disordered.
There is apprehension amongst most anti-spam editors of this page that admitting even ONE freeware web site link must "open the floodgates to a deluge of spam".  By intelligent filtering,  this need not be the case.  After all, we are in control here.
By requiring any acceptable "external link" to satisfy a number of important quality criteria, I was able to propose no more than TWO external links (WinSite- Freeware & Freeware Files) which met my standard for inclusion.  I encourage other editors to propose a different set of quality criteria that makes more sense to them than mine. -AceVentura
: There is little need to come up with "quality citeria" when clearly it comes down to a matter of personal choice. The fact is each freesite site is pretty much interchangable. That is the point. You want to come up with your own personal rating system and rank top 10 freeware sites based on your personal opinion feel free to do it on your own website. It seems clear that the concensus here is editors have better things to do then to get involved in a irrelevant, splitting hairs judgements  Aarontay 21:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. You miss the point. I'm certainly not losing sleep over the fact that everyone doesn't look for freeware or download freeware from the same sites I do. Why? because they are all the same practically, and I'm not arrogant enough to think that my favourite is the absolute gem that everyone must visit and use or the world ends. :) Aarontay 21:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What are you talking about? Someone who follows the general link and clicks on any of the links there will get all their stuff too. Given the fact that despite an obvious majority (all but one actually) on the issue, it seems to me that  by continuing to debate, someone is indeed going around with the "To hell with everyone else!" attitude, but it's not me I'm afraid.  Aarontay 21:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  how to design a dam 

message: Not to distract from the endless battle over links, but the comparison with shareware seems rather slanted, e.g. the reference to "hidden costs." In my experience--at least going back a few years--much shareware was very explicitly marketed as "try before you buy" software where you were required to pay if you continued to use the software past a specified period--even though features weren't deactivated or anything like that. To be sure, "shareware" has tended to morph over time into various forms of limited-time demos. In any case, shareware is typically software that you're expected to pay for, so describing it as having some hidden costs seems unnecessarily provocative.
02:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  vs. Shareware