Talk:Comparison of free software for audio

message: Guaka's question: Can I use (copy/paste/edit) parts of your "Sound & MIDI Software For Linux" pages into the Wikipedia [0]?
Dave Phillips' answer  Yes, you can use whatever parts you like. I do ask that you mention my
site, but I see that you've already done so.
Guaka 11:20, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled discussion

message: there should be a free audio software category with all of these programs in it.  note for future, since WP is really unresponsive today. - Omegatron 15:36, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
Are there any free audio software which record what is being produced to the speaker? -- Thorpe talk 17:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  cat 

message: for now on if you will, add what operating system the software will run on to avoid frustration (since most of them are for linux, and most readers are probably using Windows) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.38.83.189 (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  operating systems 

message: It would be good if there were links to the company's websites for every mention of the software. -- Jac roe 16:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia tries to avoid this because it's such a temptation for spammers. Gronky 17:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: I hope I didn't just mess up there by removing WavePad.  I think I did.  I saw "This article is about free software as used in the sociopolitical free software movement; for non-free software distributed without charge, see freeware." at the top of the page, but.. then I just noticed it also says "Free audio software is free software (and usually open source software) for use by sound engineers, audio producers, and those involved in sound recording and reproduction."  That seems to be a bit conflicting.  It should be clarified.  Which is it, free as in the free software movement free, or freeware (AND "usually open source software")?  --AshyRaccoon  Talk | Contribs 05:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WavePad 

message: If someone updated one of the tables with the softwares license (e.g. GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT), I would understand why this page would vary in comparison to the linux audio software page. 
At the moment, it's taking a long time to open each and view the licence for the piece of audio software.
Just an idea which would make things easier for people ... not sure if it's a  good idea though!
--J05HYYY (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Licence Information =

message: Added MilkyTracker to the list of trackers. Gyzome (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  MilkyTracker 

message: Claims to be 'free', but is really just crippleware, with fascistic locks on the GPL'd source code and a developer nagging for "Software Developer's Dole". It doesn't deserve to be here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.14.156.195 (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ardour 

message: FreeRIP? Narssarssuaq (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: include:

message: There are lots of software that are not included (such as the ones that appear in LibreMusicProduction), it may be a good idea to add them in order to have a complete list of FOSS. Should I get some permission in order to do this? Thanks. Lightmachete (talk) 03:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add more software 

message: This may be a bit off topic, but I don't know where to turn. It's a funeral.
I've been using simple Audio Freeware recording utilities since the 1990s, mostly those that "record what your sound card is playing," from the popular freeware download sites such as Cnet. Typically they may have simple editing abilities such as volume and fade-in/out, and output recordings in several possible common formats and compression levels.  A favorite was called something like: "Sound Recorder for Free," but recently has seemingly been passed around from one "developer" or distributor  to another. (I also use many other small freeware utilities.)
After a computer crash and a several year break, I now find it impossible to find one of the above that does not trigger my (Avast) anti-virus, usually a "PUP" of the redirect, spyware, or adware variety.  I surmise that the spam&Co industry folks have found purchasing and infecting freeware to be cost effective. (My work-around is using the full-blown but distracting Audacity freeware.)
If others also find this to be true and troublesome, it seems this should be in the article. I (GASP!) have no idea how this should be worded.--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:1005:EB11:5070:EE3C (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You are confusing freeware and Free Software. They are completely different. This article lists free software for audio (Audacity is free software, too, not freeware). While free software could technically contain viruses or spyware, it is highly unlikely. There may be three common explanations. First, antivirus software is notorious for false alarms (and harmless free software is often its innocent victim). Second, you may be downloading free software from infamous websites that have been known to add adware/spyware etc. to free software packages (which do not contain any adware or spyware by themselves). So just do not download re-packaged or rebranded software from scam websites (for free software, this mean you should download it from their own original websites, or just use the package manager from your operating system if you're using a system like Linux). And third, you may indeed be confusing free software with freeware. Yes, many "freeware" programs are actually adware, crippleware, spyware or malware. But that's what you get when you insist on using obscure proprietary software (like many dubious freeware programs). Anyway, I don't think anything like this should be in the article.—J. M. (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Plague: Malware Attacks on Audio Freeware Utilities 

message: Would someone please take the time to include Room EQ Wizard, https://www.roomeqwizard.com/ in the audio analysis section. JCH (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is a comparison of free software for audio. Room EQ Wizard is not free software. It is proprietary software (see the EULA), so it cannot be included in the list. Besides, it does not have its own article, which means it cannot be included in other lists either, as stand-alone lists on Wikipedia generally only include notable items that have their own article.—J. M. (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Room EQ Wizard 

message: Why not just call it Comparison of free audio software? In reference works like WP, usually "less is more".  :?) – AndyFielding (talk) 02:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds a bit like Comparison of software for free audio. I think "free software" is a precise technical term that should be as undivided as possible to make it unambiguous. Alternatively, many people could also read "free audio software" as "audio software for free". In fact, that's the way many people interpret it anyway and keep adding proprietary freeware to various free software lists on Wikipedia. That's why I would even say more is more—Comparison of free and open-source software for audio would make it clearer, even though people could still read it as "software that's either available for free or is open-source".—J. M. (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simpler title?