Talk:License-free software

message: I propose this page be moved (back?) to License-free software. After all, that is the term as used by its creator and most vocal advocate. "License-free software" also gets more than twice as many Google hits than "licence-free software" (with "-wikipedia" in the box); the "British" spelling is confined to U.K. pages and pages in non-English languages.
From the talk and deletion pages, I gather that the spelling has already been disputed at length, but I can't find any actual arguments for or against what seems to be (the American) DJB's original spelling, "license-free software,"  versus the current title. Versus "License Free Software", apparently a copyright-friendly capitalization by Wayne Marshall , which I think is silly. Any comments? --Quuxplusone 17:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone moved it back to licence-free software, which I reversed because of this successful move request and its reasoning. I changed the spelling of license in the article, which was the reason given for the article's move back. -- Kjkolb 08:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move requested (2005.06, 2006.10)

message: I have removed the {Disputed} tag , as it was added nearly a year ago, by a user who has not commented since then, and there is no present discussion of the tag(that I can see).  If anyone still considers that there is a dispute, feel free to state the dispute on this page (and re-add the tag). Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 10:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  {Disputed} tag removal (2005.11)

message: an anonymous IP removed the deletion tag with the edit summary "Removed notice that isn't true". while concise, that's not an adequate explanation or justification for keeping the article. please explain the rationale. i'm open to any good argument, but simply exclaiming that the notice isn't true (whatever that means) isn't helpful. Anastrophe 16:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: another user removed the tag, explaining the rationale (that no justification is required by policy). i understand now. sorry for the error. Anastrophe 18:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  deletion tag (2007.12) 

message: The introduction claimed that "computer software that is covered by copyright  but is not accompanied by a copyright license" is rare. I removed the claim because I believe that it is quite common for individuals and businesses to create software covered by copyright that only they themselves use and that is thus never licensed to anyone. There are also e.g. 46 000 pieces of software on , of which very few are accompanied by a license. brtkrbzhnv 11:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rare? (2010.03) 

message: Since this article is about Daniel J. Bernstein it should be merged to it. Palosirkka (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose; the concept originated with Bernstein, but has been generalized, as the page describes. Were Daniel to 'claim' the phrase, that would be rather ironic given the nature of the concept. I don't think that we need to force such a claim upon him. Klbrain (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on License-free software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140506055146/http://userscripts.org/scripts to http://userscripts.org/scripts
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140506055139/http://userscripts.org/ to http://userscripts.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified