Talk:Free software

message: This article almost completly ignores the question of the control by the user. Though this notion must be criticaly important to free software, since the free software definition by the fsf says:
I'm not one hundred percent fluent in english, so  I would not modify the article on my own for now. But I think, the article needs seriously to include this notion of control,to be accurate.
--Pparent (talk) 11:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We should try to include a paragraph on it as it is mentioned by fsf as well as outside fsf a quite few times. Belorn (talk) 10:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Control over the Software and the computer. 

message: I am considering shrinking the size of the See also section by only linking to one list of software projects. The one I think we should keep is List of free and open source software packages, and thus remove List of formerly proprietary software, List of free software project directories and List of free software for Web 2.0 Services. What are other people's thoughts on this? Belorn (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You could alternatively make a list of lists perhaps? That would tidy up the see also section. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This See Also section is not too long, though I'm about to move the lists to a sub-section. Providing the reader with access to all the lists is important for an encyclopedia. Lentower (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A few of the entries in that "See Also" list appear to be already present in the article.  I'll go through and see which links in the section duplicate wikilinks already in the body of the article and remove these per WP:SEEALSO. - SudoGhost 18:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I think of it. Should Portal:Free software be added to the see also list? Belorn (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already there, in one of the boxes to the right. - SudoGhost 21:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are so right. I must be blind :). Thanks. Belorn (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of See also 

message: I find the following sentence bordering on pejorative:
:: "Although the terms of free software are incompatible with many familiar legal arrangements by which developers are paid, they may still seek compensation by other routes that are compatible."
Would it make sense to reword it to something like:
:: Rather than selling the software itself (or permission to use it) to earn a living, developers of free software typically do so by offering professional services such as software development (e.g. custom extensions, adapting and improving the software), support, training and consultancy.
Reason: there is a subtle implication that free software developers are working outside of or on the fringes of the law. The terms of free software are also compatible "with many familiar legal arrangements by which developers are paid". In the former wording "many" could be changed to "some of the". The latter wording takes the reader a little further by mentioning the sorts of services that free software developers might offer to earn a living. - Kim Tucker (talk) 10:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not outside "the law," which is an utterly absurd reading, but absolutely outside of dependence on intellectual property law, because Stallman considers it repugnant. The sort of detail you propose is already discussed in the body of the article; the passage in the introduction is for the sake of getting the "freedom vs. price" distinction out of the way before moving on to details. 2001:558:6045:1D:56E:DCCB:ED9D:24EA (talk) 05:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This really needs improvement. Because Free Software it's not about how programmers get paid. And it's certainly not about "intellectual property" (which is flimsy term anyway, that lumps together unrelated legal aspects; and is often used to manipulate by intentional blurring it incurrs). To put the aspect of programmer compensation into the intro of the article Free Software, is thus a focussing on side-issues, where these are not appropriate: Thus is a violation of the recommendations of Wikipedia:Lead_section. Hnfiurgds (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A way to mention "money-aspects" of free software, is to say it like it is. Hnfiurgds (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  incompatible with many familiar legal arrangements 

message: I'm going to explain why these changes are reverted:
The reverted intro mentioned "legal rights to source code, that the software's creators have". Well Free Software is not at all about this: Any legal rights can be changed by politics; they are not set in stone. Free Software is about Freedoms of the users, and not about giving them what you believe legal rights of "creators" or authors to be, or what politics will legislate these rights to be. The reverted intro mentioned "These rights are granted independently of whether the author receives any payment for creating the software." Well: the original author still has control how she wishes to distribute the software. She can give it away gratis of request some payment. But the point is: If it really is free software, then she can not stop any users of the software from redistributing it (for gratis or for a fee): She cannot dictate to them how to use it, or with whom to cooperate. The reverted intro mentioned "Although the terms of free software are incompatible with developer compensation arrangements based on intellectual property law, developers may still seek compensation through other arrangements that are compatible." Intellectual property law can be: copyright, trademarkts, patents. What are you talking about? Well let's assume it is in fact any of the 3. None have any terms whatsoever about programmer compensation. Example: copyright only says what can and cannot be done, by someone who receives the work. It has no influence on what fee the author asks in order for someone to receive the work. Furthermore: a lot of free software licences (e.g. GNU GPL) are actually based on copyright law, and thus have real legal leverage. So a lot of free software makes use of copyright fundamentally and then grants very specific exceptions to it, but only if these exceptions protect the user's freedoms. It's still very much copyrighted, and can be distributed for a fee or not. So the quoted reverted sentence had errors regarding "compensation arrangements based on intellectual property law"... What does free software say about compensation: Basically nothing much. It's a side issue: Anyone who has received free software can distribute/redistribute it for any fee, or gratis. You can even choose to re/distribute it to a potential new user, only if you are given 30 bottles of some vintage Schnapps! Or you can choose not to re/distribute it at all. So it's absolutely up to the user, who thus has freedom. Hnfiurgds (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a way to mention "money aspects" of free software: "users are free – which includes the freedom to redistribute the software, which can be done gratis or for a fee". Hnfiurgds (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert of Intro 

message: :Revert. Why? Because the version is not accurate and has numerous errors. Example: "Free software [...] is software provided under terms that guarantee the freedom of all computer users (individually or in groups) to obtain it, [...]" This is wrong. Hence please don't edit an article about whose subject matter you do not know enough about. It's wrong since you do NOT every computer user has the freedom to obtain it. In contrast: only if have you obtained it, are you granted the freedoms which free software guarantees. Thus your assertion in the very first sentence is BLATENTLY WRONG. Of course: usually it is possible for everyone to receive copies, since they are provided via anonymous download. Why is it thus free software? Not because of the availablility. NO. But instead, because if you obtain it, you obtain with it freedoms to redistribute it, modify it, etc. Other errors regarding compensation (and they way it is phrased) were already mentioned previously. Hnfiurgds (talk) 04:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free Software is not defined by "open availability" 

message: Following a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 May 31#Free software development, Free software development now redirects to this article. In the discussion it was suggested that a section on development may be appropriate to this article, and that if one is written the redirect should be refined to point to that section. This note is just so you are aware of the suggestion and can consider it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free software development 

message: Just came to this page for the first time to learn more about this subject. The intro says:
Free software[1] is computer software that is distributed along with its source code, and is released under terms that guarantee users the freedom to study, adapt/modify, and distribute the software.[2][3][4][5][6]
What confuses me is that these "guarantees" are also provided by putting the programming code into the public domain. Because this intro paragraph implicitly reads as a definition of what free software is, it becomes important to understand how free software is differentiated from public domain software. If these guarantees are all that define free software then the two are indistinguishable. If there is more to the distinction then that ought to be reflected in the intro text. 66.97.209.215 (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused by introduction text: FS vs PD ? 

message: Loads of things wrong:
* First, source and a licence isn't enough.  Tivoised software can have these two things and it won't be free software.
* Second, the licence doesn't have to "guarantee" these freedoms.  Look at BSD licences, they grant the rights, but it's an abuse of language to say they "guarantee" the rights, and yet they're still free software
* Third, a licence isn't even always necessary.  Public domain source code is free software in many/most countries.
* Fourth, yes, some/much free software is written by volunteers and communities, but that's no reason to not mention that other free software is written by traditional businesses (including megacorps, even including Microsoft)
* Fifth, it should be mentioned that free software and open source software overlap on almost 100% of cases.  When people hear about some great piece of open source software, it's a very safe bet that they've just heard about some great piece of free software.  This article should mention this.  There is a difference in philosophy between the free software movement and the open source whatever, yes, but they are not distinct sets of software.
I hope this gets fixed.  I'd dig in, but seeing the recent edits, I expect there would be more discussion than I, unfortunately, have time for this week.  Gronky (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and almost said some of the same things. In short, Free Software must respect the freedom of the user(s). Everything else, such as license and even the source code, is a secondary point, a bandaid to facilitate that freedom. --Trakon (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody has objected. I am going to take these proposals further. --isacdaavid 02:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro is wrong 

message: I feel the circumstances in which the term became associated with the definition provided by the FSF should be better emphasized, and the reasons as to why it is important to prioritize it over deducting the meaning of the term from the generic dictionary meanings of "free" and "software". Skl (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: (summary: too much repetition.  all three paragraphs say that free software is about freedom, and the mechanics of how softwar becomes proprietary are explained twice in the 2nd para and again in the 3rd.  To write this intro propery, one has to make a list of what is explained, then group the similar things together, then put those groups of sentences in a logical order.)
Hi,
The intro is very good, but I made a few small changes which I'll explain:
* "protected by copyright" -> "covered by copyright" ("protected" is the point of view of people who see modification as an attack)
* "usually achieve by a software licence": deleted "usually".  Is there any other way?
* the 2nd paragraph wasn't factually wrong, but it was badly organised, talking about proprietary software, then some consequences of not having freedom, then freeware, then some other consequences of not having freedom... so I rearranged the information and removed some duplicate stuff
* removed "(e.g. copy-restriction)": this is not an everyday term, so it won't help explain the sentence to an average reader.  The term also has no fixed meaning, so it doesn't really help much explaining things to anyone.
* the 3rd paragraph again repeats stuff from the 1st and 2nd about what it means to be free or proprietary.  that sort of stuff should be said just once.  the reader won't have forgotten it two paragraphs later.  also, when examples are given in three different places, the reader could wonder what to deduce from the examples being different each time - is the article discussing three difference categories of proprietary?
There are still some improvements I think would be worth making, but it takes time to craft a good text, so I'll have to leave it for another day:
* The intro should better explain that benefit of free software isn't about you having freedoms, but about all users having freedoms, and thus the users being in control, or being able to take control (and the threat of this happening is often enough to keep companies honest).  RMS's goal is to improve society, to escape dominance.  The four freedoms are the the means, not the end.
* "restrictive software licences" - ok, that's often true, but software can also be proprietary because of the absence of a licence.  no licence = no freedoms.
* The second paragraph still needs work to make it coherent and flowing.  I'm not sure if I have to explain that, or if it's clear to everyone.  Everything similar should be grouped together and each group of sentences should form the basis for the next group.
.Gronky (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to the intro and what can still be improved 

message: Hello, I'm suggesting a move of to a disambiguation page as what I did for moving this article , since in English language the term 'free' has two different meanings: and it's possible that some people who type 'free software' and thinking of freeware get redirected to a different article. I have no personal interest on this subject, but I'm much interested in the neutrality of articles in Wikipedia. Ttt74 (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you consider that editors who do have a personal interest in the subject are better qualified to pick the article name, to organize the collection of related articles, and to decide what is considered neutral in this field, than a very new WP editor who does not claim native-level fluency in English. Your editing history suggests you have not been on Wikipedia for very long - you should probably gain more experience before making major edits, particularly article moves, without discussion...  especially articles with long and recently-active edit history. Moves can be VERY disruptive and annoying. Please also see WP:TITLE and in particular WP:COMMONNAME. Jeh (talk) 12:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia is not the right place to do discrimination against other ethnicity and cultures especially when someone considers that editors who does not claim native-level fluency in English are not qualified to contribute to Wikipedia. Ttt74 (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nothing I said was in any way discriminatory. I made no reference at all to your ethnicity or culture, and I never said you were not qualified to contribute to Wikipedia at all. Further answers will be found in my replies to your egregious templating on my talk page. Jeh (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move suggestion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on 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 http://suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-fin-micro01.html
*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
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) 20:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on 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/20130901151841/http://www.pcworld.com:80/article/202452/why_linux_is_more_secure_than_windows.html to https://www.pcworld.com/article/202452/why_linux_is_more_secure_than_windows.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111007074633/http://distrowatch.com/stats.php?section=popularity to http://distrowatch.com/stats.php?section=popularity
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080216004731/http://www.unc.edu/~mohrmana/apache.pdf to http://www.unc.edu/~mohrmana/apache.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118001419/http://standishgroup.com/newsroom/open_source.php to http://standishgroup.com/newsroom/open_source.php
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) 09:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article states the following:
"Richard Stallman used the already existing term free software when he launched the GNU Project—a collaborative effort to create a freedom-respecting operating system . . ." 
It is my opinion that the context of the term Free Software used in this article from InfoWorld relates directly to the cost of software not the idea of what the free software term describes.
Examples to illustrate my point:
* "Maybe there's no such thing as a free lunch, but there is free software"
* "In contrast to commercial software is a large and growing body of free software that exists in the public-domain."
* "Public-domain software is written by microcomputer hobbyists (also known as 'hackers'), many of whom are professional programmers in their work life."
I think this article uses the term "free software" solely to describe gratis software and uses the term "public-domain software" to describe the licensing and freedom aspects of it.
My suggestion is to remove the "already existing term" portion entirely because that source doesn't relate to what the term means.
--RottNKorpse (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference does prove that Stallman didn't coin the term (and he even mentions the weakening of the existing free software-like community as a reason for starting a new one). However, I question whether mentioning this is relevant to the article at all. --isacdaavid 22:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Stallman used an existing combination of English words, and insisted on giving them a specific meaning to which they are not ordinarly restricted. Free software used to mean, for instance, that you got Fortran with your IBM mainframe. KazKylheku (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Free Software an "existing term" before GNU/FSF? 

message: The text mostly talks about binary kernel modules ("Blobs are usually freely distributable device drivers", "The issue of binary blobs in the Linux kernel and other device drivers motivated") which aren't all that relevant here. The cited advances in blob-free operating systems are mostly related to firmware blobs, not kernel modules. This should probably be cleaned up. -- Phiarc (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Binary blobs and other proprietary software" 

message: Please participate in the discussion I started over at Talk:Free software movement: Merger proposals: the issue of the separate Open-source software movement article.
Please comment there and not here for a centralized discussion. Thank you.
--Fixuture (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposals: the issue of the separate [[Free software movement]] and [[Open-source software movement]] articles 

message: 217.168.211.38 (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  spintendo  22:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2018 

message: :Of the world's five hundred fastest supercomputers, 494 (98.8%) use the Linux kernel.
Since November 2017, it's ALL of them, 100% market share. --179.179.163.242 (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated info: TOP500 

message: "Free software" is a combination of English words which some people in a specific discussion context use to denote software redistributed under liberal terms in source code form.
If you win a copy of Adobe Illustrator in a raffle, that meets the dictionary definition of "free software".
KazKylheku (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioned in the 2016 requested move, free software is the common name for the subject of this article (software that preserves user freedoms). The common name of software that is distributed free of charge is freeware. Adobe Illustrator isn't designated as free software or freeware on Wikipedia because reliable sources don't describe it using these terms. — Newslinger talk 16:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awful NPOV! 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: is here FYI. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:RSN]] Discussion of a source related to FOSS topics