Category talk:Free software

message: Software here needs to be sorted by type (system, application, etc.) and probably cross-referenced by license. -- Beland 22:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think you're right about needing to sort by type.  Gronky 02:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've started to do this (in part to help cleanup and eventually eliminate List of open source software).  Help would be welcome! --Karnesky 06:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Noticed your . I know a bit about this stuff; I'll help sort articles into subcategories. - Corbin ∫ 1 ɱ p s ɔ ♫ Rock on, dude! 02:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done on the progress.  I've started pitching in and have moved 200 articles from this category into subcategories.  I think when there are 200 or less (1 page) of articles in the category, we can remove the cleancat tag. Gronky 17:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Attention tag

message: There's a :Category:Free software projects, but very few articles are in it. It seems to me that articles about programs should go in that category rather than :Category:Free software. — A.M. 06:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What if one project, like KDE, makes many programs?  There isn't different projects for Kate and KNode. It would be incorrect, if both the programs were in Category:Free software projects. -12:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: KDE is a project, and Kate is a project, and KNode is a project.  There's no problem there. Gronky 01:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: A few people (including me) are in the process of creating cats for each type of application, which will clear most of the applications out of the main part of the list.  We haven't considered using the free software projects cat.  It might be a good idea, but the projects cat is currently small & only has 1 subcat.  Also, it might not be needed once we subcat all of the software....--Karnesky 06:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate category for programs

message: There's no need to repetitively use the terms "free" and "open source" for each subcategory, as they appear on this page. Even if it's necessary to include those terms in the actual name of the subcategory, the link on the category page can reasonably use the shortened form. Some of the reasons why:
*The name of the category already implies that all of the subcategories relate to free or open-source software. Explicitly adding "free" or "open source" to each subcategory as they appear on this page serves no useful purpose and does not make the list of subcategories any more intuitive.
*The repetitive use of the terms "free" and "open source" for the subcategories (as they appear on this page) is distracting and makes it more difficult to quickly skim throught the list of subcategories. --Flash 16:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand.  You want the sub-categories to be displayed on :Category:Free software without the "free" or "open" word?  How can that be done? Gronky 17:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, looks like I made a newbie mistake. I was thinking that the category links are just like regular wiki links, where you can state them differently than the actual name of the link. If there was such a way, it'd make the page a lot more readable, but... well, I'll go hide my head in the sand now ;-) --Flash 20:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundant subcategories

message: Would a subcat for RSS/Atom feed aggregators be useful? Should I just add it, or should we talk about it? -- Steven Fisher 23:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Please add it & throw in the packages from List_of_open_source_software_packages#RSS.2FAtom_readers.2Faggregators & replace that with a mainarticle.  Feel free to cleanup that list and this cat with other subcats too. --Karnesky 23:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feed aggregators? 

message: Hi, sorry to be a downer, but this cat seems totally hopeless. Yes, free software and open source software exist, but there is far too much out there to list in a category. This will forever not be able to keep up, nor will it be helpful. Wikipedia is not the source of all knowledge, and it is not a database of free software, so why bother with this category? Individual articles can mention that it is free software and provide a link to the products webpage. +mwtoews 22:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha. I see now that there are subcategories. These are actually helpful. I was concentrating on the items in the "Category:Free software". So let me clarify: the items in :Category:Free software are hopeless, as they are too unspecific. I don't recommend articles about "free software" to be categorized as "Category:Free software"; however, the subcategories in "Category:Free software" is more helpful as they are specific, and articles should be classified according to those categories. So should those items in "Category:Free software" be cleaned up into their subcategories? +mwtoews 22:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, all members of Category:Free_software should be sorted into the subcategories.  The only reason to add something to Category:Free_software is so that you or someone else can find it and sort it into a subcategory later.  So if you see a page about free software, try to put it in a subcategory, but if you don't know of any suitable subcategory, putting it in Category:Free_software is better than doing nothing.  Also, having articles in Category:Free_software shows us what subcategories are needed.  For example, when there were a lot of text editors in Category:Free_software, someone made Category:Free_text_editors. Gronky 10:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This category is hopeless 

message: Could anyone clarify the atypical cases, if any, where articles in this category would not be "distributed with a free software license" and whose source code is not "available to anyone who receives a copy of the software."  The word "typically" seems to open the door for individual interpretation of free software which runs contrary to the consensus of this discussion.  "Free enough" software seems to be the result.  Hamitr 15:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the additional context of software which can be freely used, copied, studied, modified, and redistributed by everyone that obtains a copy: "free software" or "open source software". is clear enough.  Even using merely "free software license" is not enough.  While the linked article does mention OSI-approved licenses, some may read the category's verbiage narrowly as "FSF-approved" licenses.  The FSF hasn't gotten around to acknowledging every free/open license just yet.  I think ANY FSF/OSI-approved license should be O.K. for inclusion in the cat.  If a license definitely conforms to DFSG & FSF's "four freedoms," but has not yet received formal approval, I wouldn't object to the inclusion in the cat. --Karnesky 17:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely.  I wanted to make sure that was the consensus view. --Hamitr 21:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've commented on Talk:POV-Ray & would encourage you to do the same. --Karnesky 14:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I added a poll, as we're starting to get the same comments from the same small group of people. Talk:POV-Ray#Free_software_categorization_straw_poll --Karnesky 22:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Hamitr: One case of free software not being distributed as source code with a free software licence is when source code is released into the public domain, but maybe that is the only case, so we should include that case and remove the "typically". Gronky 09:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  My original inquiry was, I suppose, in anticipation of edge cases.  I didn't anticipate a discussion popping up this fast, though. --Hamitr 13:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If we eliminate "typically," I'd like it emphasized that "free software license" meant more than just licenses acknowledged as free by the FSF.  As I posted in POV-Ray, we seem to correctly handle the majority of the most famous "edge cases." --Karnesky 14:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that any wording would solve the argument on the POV-Ray article, but I've added to this categories description that it includes licences other than those on FSF's list. Gronky 14:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Typically''', this means software

message: What a horrible choice of name. "Free" in this categories hierarchy means "gratis", "free of charge", and is not meant as "at liberty". You'll never get the two disentangled by keeping the homonymy. So either give up the "free" term when referring to OSS (and call it so), or go rename all the free-of-charge categories with "gratis", in which case, good luck to you. --Jerome Potts (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "free"