Talk:Freeware

message: llowing for being unsourced and POV. == The first paragraph is entirely superfluous; it basically says "this is freeware, or it isn't, depending on what you think", which is a tautology. The second paragraph seems to indicate that anything with strings attached doesn't qualify as "freeware", which doesn't jive with popular usage. Lots of freeware programs out there are used as loss leaders, for example nearly all AV/firewall freeware usually has a Pro edition. It's too restrictive to say that freeware can't be a loss leader, can't use advertising to generate revenue, etc. Certainly these are less desirable types of freeware but it seems to me they still count as freeware. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article should include more of a focus on freeware as a type of license. Freeware, as programs, aren't really distinct from other types of software. Rather, the significance of freeware is the terms under which the software is provided, i.e. a license. Ham Pastrami (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed "Since freeware refers to the terms under which software is provided, it is a type of software license rather than a functional software category." from the intro.  Freeware is not a license.  A license is related to IP and the right to modify and redistribute the software.  The developer/publisher of a freeware app can choose to include a restrictive EULA or adapt a less restrictive free software license.  The developer can include copyleft restrictions as well.  As the article points out, freeware is not necessarily the same as free software.  Free software come with free software licenses.  Free software grants certain freedoms to the end-users.  Freeware does not have to be free in that sense.  A freeware application can have a proprietary license, a free software license (e.g. GPL), or no license at all.  Slo-mo 11:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? A license is the set of conditions under which the software is offered. A license agreement is the contract between the user and copyright owner to adhere to those terms. You cannot have a license agreement without a license to agree to. A EULA document includes the text of the license (otherwise you'd be agreeing to nothing). A license is not limited to modification and redistribution -- binaries are also copyrightable, and without a license you cannot legally redistribute them. However, you're correct that public domain software is not licensed, so I will add that qualification. Ham Pastrami (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Heh, I kind of misinterpreted your reference to license-free software. I thought you meant public domain, which is a valid point. However, the article you referenced is about a type of licensing that has been coined as "license-free", in the same sense that "copyleft" is in fact a form of copyright, and neither really has any relevance to this topic that I can see. Ham Pastrami (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Slo-mo is right.  "Freeware" is not about licenses, it's about prices ($0.00).  You can have freeware that is GPL-licensed, a la free software.  You can have freeware that disavows ownership, a la public domain software.  And you can have freeware that doesn't permit redistribution, a la proprietary software.  RossPatterson (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument about price is certainly much more understandable; the word "freeware" means gratis software, I agree with that. What I disagree with is that, apparently contrary to Slo Mo's and the latter half of your argument, yes, there is such a thing as a "freeware license": trivially, any license that is attached to freeware. The sentence in question doesn't say what freeware is, it says what the word freeware refers to -- its terms of use. You can edit this to be more precise if you like, or you can remove it if you believe it to be stating the obvious, but to say that freeware isn't a type of licensing is incorrect; the duality of open source and proprietary licenses is not absolute. In fact, the latter as a category only exists as the antithesis to the former. Freeware licensing, shareware licensing, etc. are all valid types of licenses that exist outside the blanket of "proprietary". That is whether Richard Stallman likes it or not. Ham Pastrami (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Allow me to correct myself: the sentence as worded does imply a re-definition of "freeware", that is a mistake and I will change it now. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More emphasis on license? 

message: Shouldn't Free2Play be added. Free2Play is a common form or term using by the gaming industry that indicate the game as a Freeware EULA. I know it usually come in 2 forms, free forever and premium accounts or free forever account only, both with Marketplace / Item-mall. Marketplace or Item-mall is the most commonly type of operations that a free MMO games operate. Larger corporations such as Digicell and K2Network often have a community game that is used for online transaction or multiple accounts. --Ramu50 (talk) 01:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free2Play 

message: The article concering Shareware says "(shareware)...is distributed without payment on a trial basis and is limited by any combination of functionality, availability, or convenience...The aim of shareware is to give buyers the opportunity to use the program and judge its usefulness before purchasing a licence for the full version of the software."
Whereas Freeware says: "Freeware is computer software that is available for use with no cost or for an optional fee.[1]. Freeware is different from shareware, where the user is obliged to pay (e.g. after some trial period or for additional functionality)."
Isn't that somewhat contradictory? Or did I misunderstand what is said here? There are optional fees, but how doesn't that make it shareware? You do pay fees for more functionality or convenience, then it is shareware. And in Shareware it is said that the user is limited by any combination "functionality, availability, or convenience". I guess demos could fit in the description, even those that have no expiration time. To what extent can't "freeware" with fees or extra subscriptions be considered a demo or trial of some sort? I always believed that freeware was some piece of software 100% free (no subscriptions or extra fees).
For example, F2P games, as mentioned above, are often considered as "freeware" by many. But they almost always have "cash shops", and users who don't pay to get credit for buying extra stuff from such cash shops usually don't experience a "complete" version of the game in comparison to those who pay, this ranges from insignificant things to vital aspects of the gameplay. And even that way, all of them claim to be "freeware", not "shareware". Can someone help me coming up with the real definition on this?--Faitudum (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the writing is merely vague... the appositive attached to the end of the second sentence is talking about shareware, not the freeware that is initially mentioned. I'll try to clean this up right now. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Shareware x Freeware

message: I believe Firefox should be removed as an example. While it is technically Freeware because no monetary contribution is required, Firefox is general considered to be free software, which is something this article is attempting to avoid confusion with. For the sake of avoiding said confusion, free software such as Firefox should be removed or at the least many examples of proprietary freeware should be added along with it and distinguished from free software.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.134.204.247 (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indee a confusion with Free software is possible, but as you say, Firefox is technically freeware. I've made it clear that there is closed-source freeware and open-source freeware. --SF007 (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples 

message: In the Criteria section, part-way into the second paragraph, it says, "The principal difference being that free software can be used, studied, and modified without restriction; free software embodies the concept of 'free speech' while freeware that of 'free beer'."
Call me stupid, but I have never heard that before, therefore I don't know what is being alluded to here. Could that maybe be fixed, or at least clarified in the article? Thanks. 98.202.38.225 (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion on the "free beer" analogy 

message: Quick question: Is the correct usage:
1) Program X is a freeware.
2) Program X is freeware.
Inquiring minds want to know! -- Schapel (talk) 13:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to have taken six years to respond to your question.  In my experience, your option 2 is standard usage.  Thus, "Google Chrome is freeware" (and now for the war to start based upon my chosen example).Ambiguosity (talk) 06:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage of the term ''freeware'' 

message: When it's crippleware, nagware, adware, spyware, trialware etc. Is this incorrect? I see lots of people trying to promote programs as freewares when what you actually get isn't the full program but a crippled version, or it's somthing that keeps showing advertisement or nagging you to buy the full version/"register", or somthing that doesn't stay fully functional after a small period etc; it is incorrect to call those freewares, don't you agree? --TiagoTiago (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  When "freeware" is not freeware? 

message: * http://www.technewsworld.com/story/software/73491.html
Yug (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freeware make better code 

message: I've been pondering this, and I think that this would make a good definition for the lead:
Freeware is software that is provided at no cost, but whose license terms violate one or more principles of the Free Software Definition. 
Can anyone else offer an opinion on this? Pokajanje|Talk 21:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This would be a npov propaganda pro-free software statement... that is a subtle political statement that cannot be on Wikipedia. --Pretty les♀♥,  Dark Mistress,  talk,  15:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  NPOV (neutral point of view) propaganda is fine! ;) --AVRS (talk) 13:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for new definition 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources.  Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Codename Lisa (talk) 07:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: The introduction to the article is well written and gives a good overall view of the subject.  The History section is not very long and can be expanded to give a more complete picture of the subject’s history.  The section “definitions” has two sub-sections, “Software license” and “Relation to other forms of software licensing”.  These sections are well written and give the reader a good understanding of their subjects.  There is also a graphic that visualizes the relationship between freeware and open-source software.  I’m not sure if “Definitions” is the best title for the section, though.  The final section, “Restrictions” is also well written.  There is a “See Also” list that list other Wikipedia articles related to this one.  The article contains twenty Citations, which, I think is a good number for an article this size.  The “References” Section contains notes on many of the references, which gives the reader a better understanding of what the reference contains.   There are only two listings in the “External Links” section, and I think that there can be more links added to this section.
	Overall, I think that the article is well written, with a good number of citations.  Some of the sections, though I think can be expanded to add more information pertaining to the subject.
Original Sentence:
The term freeware was coined in 1982 by Andrew Fluegelman when he wanted to sell a communications program named PC-Talk that he had created but for which he did not wish to use commercial distribution channels.
Modified Sentence:
Andrew Fluegelman coined the term “freeware” in 1982 when he developed PC-Talk, a communications program, and he did not want to sell it through commercial distribution channels.
Any comments on this critique would be appreciated.
Heronhaus (talk) 02:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freeware critique 

message: When dealing with freeware products first thing that one should take care of is to find the difference between personal and business use. If the freeware is defined for the personal use only such as downloading the software program, installing and running the software mainly on one computer on which the software is downloaded then the software is all free! Now, if the same person is working for a firm and downloads the software on a office computer then it is considered as business use. As the software is downloaded on the office computer under the firm name the software will have lot of demands such as it includes the fee for the software, the software is looked as a commercial software, will have to seek permissions. 
So, the safe plan keeping all these things in mind is to simply treat these software programs as if they are business freeware products and then register their usage accordingly.Pkotrike (talk) 03:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freeware software Registration 

message: According to FSF, the definition of "Freeware" is ambiguous, if so why the definition clearly excluded all gratis released F.O.S.S. and only including proprietary software?
Why does Freeware HAS TO not providing user at least 1 essential freedom(TM)? -- Vdragon.TW (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: While often Open source software is also freeware....it is not always. As FOSS software makes it an important point that it is not about "commerciality" ("orthogonal/we don't care") and Freeware is about commerciality, e.g. the lack of price, the concepts are mostly orthogonal. To formulate it another way: not all FOSS software is freeware, nor is this required or prohibited by FOSS licenses, so it is hard to include the FOSS software here in a single sentence explanation Shaddim (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your heads-up, personally I believe that the "proprietary" term should be removed from freeware's definition, just saying -- Vdragon.TW (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: After some further thinking , I think you are right and will try reformulate ... but I believe, much more work is needed in the header and definition part 11:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does gratis F.O.S.S. software excluded from Freeware? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Freeware. 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/20060614133129/http://textfiles.fisher.hu/news/freeware.txt to http://textfiles.fisher.hu/news/freeware.txt
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) 19:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Creative Commons licenses are not for software. Form Creative Commons FAQ:
″Can I apply a Creative Commons license to software?
We recommend against using Creative Commons licenses for software. Instead, we strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses which are already available...
Unlike software-specific licenses, CC licenses do not contain specific terms about the distribution of source code, which is often important to... Many software licenses also address patent rights, which are important to software but may not be applicable to other copyrightable works. Additionally, our licenses are currently not compatible with the major software licenses, so it would be difficult to integrate CC-licensed work with other free software. Existing software licenses were designed specifically for use with software and offer a similar set of rights to the Creative Commons licenses.....
Also, the CC0 Public Domain Dedication is GPL-compatible and acceptable for software. For details, see the relevant CC0 FAQ entry.
While we recommend against using a CC license on software itself, CC licenses may be used for software documentation, as well as for separate artistic elements such as game art or music.″
So deleted section or...?
Edit: add'd two  to the section
Accoun1 (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: CC licenses are very useful to do define Freeware more accurate. This missing recommendation of the Creative commons came in the hightime of the debate if CC licenses are "good" open source licenses and public domain is overall possible worldwide (CC0). the main proponent of this position, Lawrence Rosen (attorney), backed down later from this position. https://web.archive.org/web/20160312093735/https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-March/001679.html Shaddim (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creative Commons Licenses not for Software 

message: Roses 🥀 173.225.52.219 (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roses