Talk:Free software/Archive 3

message: There are plenty of people that use the term "free" that don't really associate (or agree with) the FSF. This article assumes free == FSF == RMS which is a bit of an oversimplification.
I would say the term "free software" is just what people called it before that Eric Raymond fella (I'll withold my opinion of him) et al. decided to create all this "open source" hype. A lot of the types that still don't buy into Raymond's trendy ideas still use "free" over "open". There are lots of free projects that fit Stallman's definition of free, that use the word "free", but whose developers would object to the Stallman comparison.
I'd like to edit this article to reflect that but I don't know how it fits in the current one, which seems very FSF-oriented. -- unsigned.
Fortunately or unfortunately, the free software community is indeed broader than just the FSF. However, the words accepted understanding is rooted in the history and foundings by FSF and RMS. --71.241.136.108 17:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There should be a distinction between "free" and "FSF" 

message: :Category:Free software has more than 150 articles in the main category. Many of these should be taken out and put in subcategories. But I don't know much about the subject. Can anyone help with this? Thanks. Maurreen 15:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh. The subcategories are part of the problem, it seems. For instance, there's :Category:Free Mac OS software, :Category:Free Windows software, and :Category:Free Linux software. On the one hand, there are categories missing for plenty of other popular and frequently supported operating systems. On the other hand, you don't want to add a dozen categories to every free software project just because it runs on that many operating systems. ... Splitting by supported OS may not be the best solution. We should probably have a separate subcategory for all actual free software (e.g. :Category:Free softare projects). That will at least unclutter the main category. Rl 15:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also :Category:Freeware. Maurreen 15:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. Freeware is something entirely different from free software – in short: freeware means you don't have to pay for the software (free as in beer), free software means you get the source code plus a bunch of rights that usually remain with the author (free as in freedom). In other words: These two categories are distinct. Rl 19:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Category

message: Does anyone want to make a Free Software Wikiportal? I noticed there's one on the French wikipedia, here is the link to "Portail Logiciels libres", and one on the German wikipedia, here is the link to "Portal Freie Software". This would be a good place to organize all the free software links. I noticed the French Cygwin/X page, here has a free software template, here, that links to the portal. This would be helpful to our English Cygwin/X page so people can found out about other free software. -Hyad 03:11, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
:I started one (Portal:free software) but it needs a lot of work and I got busy. Gronky 01:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Free Software Wikiportal 

message: The Social significance of free software, individual motives and relative security sections are a combination of POV, odd stuff that is off-topic, and unsourced claims. I'm not even sure what the meaning of the "individual motivations" section is, and it seems like it may be original research as well. Nathan J. Yoder 17:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Added cleanup-section templates. You could have done this too: just add  on the top of these sections. ;-) --Hdante 03:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: There's an AFD for a new article which essentially duplicates the content (an effecitve merger) of this article and others: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative terms for free software. Nathan J. Yoder 04:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD 

message: According to Darwin article, Darwin is the whole operating system, while it's kernel is called XNU. If this is correct, then the example section here should be changed. Please review. --Hdante 19:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is correct that Darwin is an OS, and since BSD and GNU/Linux are also both OSs, I've just changed "Operating system kernels:" to "Operating systems:". Gronky 23:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Hello. Now the kernels are missing. This will get confusing. :-/... Maybe operating systems/kernels ? --Hdante 00:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that they're missing - there's info about the kernel of each operating system on each operating system's page. And I can't picture someone being confused by the page not listing free software kernels. I think Linux deserves a special mention because it's an unusually famous kernel, but I can't think of a clean way to add it. Also, when I was editing that section, I started thinking it was too big anyway. Maybe listing the 20 or so most well known projects. I'm not sure, but I do know I'm stuck for time this week, so I won't be doing much. Gronky 12:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Darwin a kernel ? 

message: About one or two months ago, I spoke with Richard Matthew Stallman on the subject of Free Software. He told me that Free Software was anything BUT Open Source Software. He wanted to make absolutely sure that I knew that. He says Open Source costs a lot of money, whereas Free Software is different in some way.
Please help me to understand this more fully. -- Anonymous
:It is more appropriate to think of free software as "anything but" proprietary software. The difference between open source and free software, and between free software and proprietary software is not just about money. Try looking at Open source vs. free software. Hope that helps. --64.91.160.207 04:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There must have been some misunderstanding. Here's an essay by Richard about the two names: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html Gronky 22:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open Source is not Free Software 

message: One of the definitions of Free software in this article is that it is non-commercial, and not to be sold for profit. The FSF goes right against this, and on its website says that free software can be commercial as well. (As it is 'Free as in freedom, not free as in free beer')
:You totally misread the intro. Go read it again and realize your foolishness. --maru (talk) contribs 18:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think this should be taken into account 

message: Anyone going there is far more likely to be looking for an explanation about the concept rather than 5 lines only about where the term came from. The small amount of info there could be merged in. Gronky 23:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge in [[Libre software]] 

message: From the article: "Free software gives users the same freedoms the copyright holder has, while the owners of proprietary software restrict freedoms to make profit."
This statement suggests that free software may be legally sold profit. Is this true, or may free software be legally sold only at the cost of producing the copy? --Theshibboleth 22:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Former. --maru  (talk)  contribs 22:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selling free software for profit? 

message: If anything, releasing a game's source code (Doom, Quake), et al) as free software (as opposed to releasing the entire game) encourages others to develop revised and new game engines that run on alternative operating systems and devices, encouraging gamers to purchase the proprietary game so the game files (graphics, sounds, etc.) can be married to the new engine. I know I re-purchased Doom so I could play the game with PrBoom on my Ubuntu system, thereby generating more income for id Software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.111.235.36 (talk • contribs) 
:Commercial games tend not to use free engines for several reasons:
:#Engines of AAA commercial games often contain trade-secreted techniques and thus are considered a strategic asset to their copyright owners. (Id Software can get away with Freeing its engines after several years because the value of these techniques decreases over time as they are independently rediscovered or reverse-engineered from the executable.)
:#There's still a healthy market in licensing of video game engines. (Same depreciation argument as above.)
:#The situation for aggregation of proprietary game data with a copylefted engine is poorly understood.
:#Video game consoles from the Big Three (Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft) use a trade-secreted bootloader that denies the owner of a machine the right to modify the game engine and run it. In fact, the GNU GPL version 3 draft prohibits "modes of distribution that deny users that run covered works the full exercise of the legal rights granted by this License." Thus the situation for use of a copylefted engine on a console is poorly understood.
:#Because of latency issues, action games that use online play must necessarily send information that the program hides from the user at the moment the packet is received, just in case that information becomes visible to the player between now and the next packet. For example, if this information includes the coordinates of an opponent waiting behind a wall, there is little or no way to prevent people from wallhacking their clients short of prohibiting modification of the client software.
:--Damian Yerrick (☎) 01:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regarding your last issue (prohibiting modification of client software in online games, to prevent some hacks), that is not really a reason against free software in games. Recall that what is required is that all players use the same "version" (or one among the subset accepted by all) of the game, NOT that the "original" game be immutable. You have a (legally modified) version of the game that allows you to see through walls? Then you can't play here, sorry. As simple as that. No need to ban a user of modifying a piece of software the way she sees fit. Just some modifications are not allowed in some arenas, like you don't use swearwords in front of kids, but it doesn't prevent the society of inventing and using such swearwords in other contexts. Isilanes 18:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is still the problem how to make sure everyone does indeed use the same version. As every check for this would be open source, they can be circumvented. --MushroomCloud 15:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How does free software discourage games?

message: I'm removing this paragraph which is clearly POV. Since there are also well-known opinions that contradict it:
* http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gpl-american-way.html
* http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gpl-american-dream.html
* http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/software-libre-commercial-viability.html
62.57.142.73 13:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV paragraph claiming that free software is antagonist with capitalism and/or commercial incentive 

message: The article mentions public domain software as an example of free software, but I don't think there is any public domain software in the USA, at least. My understanding is that it is not possible to "surrender" copyrights, and I don't think any software is old enough for its copyright to have expired. I don't want to just delete that part of the article, however, because the situation may differ in other countries. In any case, this should be clarified.
:I think the public domain still exists in the USA. For one example, the government of the USA cannot claim copyright and therefore their works are public domain (this does not apply to works which they commission by third parties). However, you may be right about other countries. I don't know enough to comment though. Gronky 20:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public Domain Software 

message: The following comment was put into the article. I've notified the contributor and have moved it here. The edit that added this comment to the article can be seen here:  Gronky 16:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good point. There are restrictions, but they are there to prevent other, harsher restrictions from appearing. Perhaps this needs to be worded a little more clearly. I've modified the first paragraph to "little or no restriction". I don't think it needs it's own section, otherwise it will probably start to duplicate too much information that is better elsewhere, such as on GNU GPL/BSD license, Copyleft, etc. --h2g2bob 16:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *Nit-picking about GPL not being "free enough" is silly. The GPL is as "unfree" as it is to make it illegal to shoot folk who do not share one's POV. The (silly) "freedom to shoot anybody" is cut short to guaranty a definitely more important freedom (the one to think and speak one's mind freely), which would not be possible to guaranty without the banning to use violence. Arguing that some other license is "more free" than GPL, just because it allows for more things is like arguing that allowing people shooting others at will adds to the freedom of the society. Isilanes 14:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the important point, which the article should reflect, is that free software (and the GPL) is not about an undefined "free". It's never sufficient to say "I support freedom", there has to be a definition. Free software, and the GPL, are about ensuring the recipient is free to run, modify, and redistribute (modified or unmodified) the software they receive. Gronky 14:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's a disclaimer at the top of the article. 80.233.255.7 14:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  This isn't "nit-picking", it's an argument that is at the core of the non-proprietary software world and that has remained unresolved for over 20 years. It's the key religious difference between the BSD/MIT/X and GPL camps, and like most schismatic rifts it isn't likely to ever heal completely. Of course the GPL restricts the actions of its licensees - the whole point of the license is to restrict the distributor and ensure that the receiver gets the whole package, source and all. The question of whether these restrictions are "good" or "bad" is one of POV, and one that doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. This article should (indeed, must under Wikipedia policies) present Free Software from a purely factual perspective and avoid judging any of the arguments pro or con. In fact, with the exception of direct quotes from the FSF, Stallman, et al., the article should probably avoid using loaded terms like "freedom" to describe the effects of the GPL and similar licenses. RossPatterson 00:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: * Your argument further supports qualifying as superfluous (if not idiotic) any warning (within Wikipedia) to GPL not being completely free. We are not discussing if "freedom" and "GPL" could/should be mentioned together, but rather if it should be mentioned that GPL is not so "free" after all. I call this bullshit, and I claim that if it be the case, then similar "warnings" should be issued in, e.g., Democracy, Constitution and so on. Moreover, I propose that the sentence Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia be rephrased to Wikipedia, the not-fully-free encyclopedia, on the basis that I can not write whatever in it, because its restricting policies limit my freedom to do so. Isilanes 11:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Isilanes, words like "freedom" are not biased in this context, and attempts to avoid them risks adding weasel words to the article. I don't see the page as biased, but a proper definition section and brief mention of the differences between BSD/GPL would be welcome. --h2g2bob 15:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The actual definition seems to be under "Free software licenses", so perhaps that should be renamed to "Definition and free software licenses" and moved up the page a bit; or the definition placed in it's own section. Renaming the section is my first choice, as the definition seems to run the whole length of that section (I'd say that things like Copyleft/Public Domain distinction and the Debian guidelines are really definition). --h2g2bob 17:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is "free software" really?