Talk:Free software movement/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Mozilla Relicensing

Hi

As you will see, I edited the article to state the only old versions of Mozilla make use of the NPL. But my change was reverted by User:70.48.250.225. I'm quite sure that the edit I made was factual. Here are 2 cites:

• http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/archives/2006/03/relicensing_complete.html Hacking for Christ:Relicensing Complete
• http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/relicensing-faq.html Mozilla Relicensing FAQ

Is there a good reason why my edit was reverted, or can I add it back in? --Gary van der Merwe 19:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't take credit for the revert, but I think it's accurate just keeping the past-tense "used" and clarifying the relicensing on the NPL article--which it already is. --72.92.137.56 22:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"FS philosophy" here or new page?

I've been thinking about starting an article about the free software philosophy, but I'm currently thinking it would be better to make it part of the "free software movement" article. This seems like the right division because the free software philosophy is the difference between the movement and the free software community. Comments? Objections? Gronky 13:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Why wouldn't free software philosophy belong at free software? --69.54.29.23 16:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"Free software" is about the definition and the software that has been written. It's also a sort of parent article. Licences should be mentioned in "free software", but the details go in "free software licences". Same with the philosophy. That's what I'm thinking anyway. Gronky 17:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Means of production

If someone knows of a likening of free software to Means of production, it would be interesting to add. Gronky 14:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Eben Moglen doesn't quite get there in his dotCommunist Manifesto, but almost. --71.169.128.40 23:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

What's confusing?

A {{clarify}} tag has been added to the article. The tag says "see the talk page for details", but no details have been added here. Can someone say what is confusing about the article so that it can be fixed? Thanks. Gronky 18:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Tag removed. Gronky 12:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Willing to assist

Hello everyone.

I'm just letting you know that I'm available to help in the clarification and/or rewriting or restructuring of this Wikipedia entry. When should we plan on doing this? I'm currently watching this page, also. Dylan Knight Rogers 23:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Proprietary software

The unsourced statement, "Some adherents to the free software movement do not believe that proprietary software is strictly immoral," in the Philosophy section contradicts the statement, "The free software movement also rejects proprietary software, refusing to install software that does not give them the freedoms of free software," in the Actions section of this article. My perception is that the latter statement is more accurate. Furthermore, "some adherents" is an example of weasel words. If examples cannot be found, perhaps that paragraph should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aardvark92 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

I've added a quote from Richard Stallman to support the statement about rejecting proprietary software. Aardvark92 08:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I have found sources for the remaining {{Fact}} tags, including the "Some adherents..." line referenced above. I've removed the unreferenced tag at the beginning of the page.

In making these edits, I have rearranged the page slightly, creating a new section for free software vs. open-source comparisons.Aardvark92 05:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Opening sentences

Is it proper to say "...the free software philosophy, began in 1983 when Richard Stallman announced the GNU Project." when even Stallman himself admits that it was a reaction to a changing culture that didn't view distributing source-code as a positive thing (http://www.faifzilla.org/ch01.html). Should that line be changed to "officially began in 1983," and possibly include a reference to RMS's biography where he talks about the origin of the movement (citation 8 in the Richard Stallman page). --MyOwnLittlWorld 15:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I'm trying to fix this now. Gronky 16:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's already fixed, thanks for making me looke this up. Daniel 5127 06:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Failure and/or add Criticism section

this article mentions nothing of the profound failure of the free software movement to break into the mainstream — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.105.239 (talk) 1:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

your comment, as it stands, is just your opinion, and defintely not [WP:NPOV]. If you want to add this to the article, you have to find and cite reliable sources on both sides of the issue. Lentower 20:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

? I don't know what "failure" the previous poster is talking about, but there really should be a "Criticism" section. Some of the attacks on Torvalds indicate a fanatical rejection of pragmatism. Reading about the personal life of icon Richard Stallman should reveal that he looks down on anyone who wants to eat regularly. The fundemental fact is that many (if not most) of the people contributing Open Source are gainfully employed by proprietary software developers for their day jobs. AND THAT'S OK. There is a proper place for both open source and proprietary software, and neither one is inherently good or evil. Farcast 23:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A well-written and well-cited Criticism section would be a good idea. Farcast's evaluation of rms is as far off the mark as 24.10.105.239's evaluation of the Free Software movement success is off the mark. Lentower 23:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lentower. I've never seen any indication that Richard Stallman has anything against food.Aardvark92 23:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Because you're taking a metaphorical demonstration as literal-- Farcast was simply stating that each individual has a right to their own products, and they have a right to distribute their products as they deem fit, and if someone wants to consider that 'immoral', as the article tends to state, then the burden of proof lies on those who assert that it's 'immoral', which, when analyzed, deconstructs as a contradiction. The article under, "Shouldn't a programmer deserve or ask for rewards for their creativity?" demonstrates this, stating, "Restricting and controlling the user's decisions on use is the actual violation of freedom"; it implies that the owner is being dictated by those who want unlimited use of his property thus "actual violation of freedom", negating it's own premise. The true 'immoral' (which itself has a deceptively used definition here) part is the stealing, whether it be through force or fraud, not the owner dictating who, what, where, when, and why his product is to be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.105.184.93 (talk) 13:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"Failure" is a mis-characterisation, What you're describing is slow progress. There should be a mention of the clashes between Stallman and Linus, but it's importance should be kept in historical perspective. Criticisms of Stallman should be added to the Richard Stallman article (there is no "criticisms" section, criticisms are included in the relevent sections of the article). Gronky 17:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A Criticism section, that was mispelled, and not even critical was in this article. I removed it. I really would like to see one. I think that Wikipedia as a whole is a bit biased against closed source projects, although I would say not because of the users only, but the license of the wiki. This should not stop us from being more perfect. We need a Criticism section because this article needs it in order to show what the Free Software Movement is altogether, just like the rest of the article is needed to show what it is as well. - Thekittenofterra (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

dead link

Citation number 11 goes to a non-existant server. I'm not sure if it whould be removed or marked or what. Bawolff (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. RossPatterson (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

I went ahead and changed things around in relation to the opening discussion of open source. I'm not sure that what I have is great but I think it's progress. This article is about the social movement for talk about the "open source movement" can't just be listed as a synonym without also speaking to the complex relationship. —mako๛ 20:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Meanings of the word "free"

It is important to define which use of the word "free" we are using. Free can mean to not pay for something, but it can also mean to not be prisoned/chained down. When we mean free software do we mean something that you don't need to pay for, or do we mean something that is not caged by society and limitations? I first thought it was something that you didn't have to pay for, but the other definition brings another perspective Dracothejuggler (talk) 05:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually... Free-Software is about liberty. In spanish its name is "Software libre". In spanish this dual meaning doesn't exists that is why some new free software ir named with the word "Libre" that means freedom. Is a software that doesn't have all the privatizations that other software have. Free software can be distributed and adapted to your needs. Some free software are paid, the diference is that they have open code. If you know something about programming you can change de code of which the software is made.

201.196.192.198 (talk) 08:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Intellectual property reform activism?

Does Free software movement really has anything to do with activities described in {Intellectual property activism} template, like 'anti-copyright' and criticism of IP rights? IMHO not (my understanding is that free software movement operates within existing legal framework and does not call for any reform in this field), and I'm strongly tempted to remove this template from Free software movement page (unless there are objections). Ipsign (talk) 11:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)