Talk:Free and open-source software

Open Source is not Free Software
Having info regarding Free Software doesn't make sense as Open Source is only a market strategy that actually doesn't care about the four freedoms. I have changed the first line of this article (which was containing such confusions) and started a page regarding Free Software.--Comrade-yutyo (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Open Source and Free Software are related to each other. It's not a "market strategy". Open Source = you can look at my source code. Free Software = you can look at and modify my source code as long as you share it under the same terms and give out the source as well. It's true that Open Source is an offshoot of Free Software because of ESR, but to say that it's "just a market strategy" is overlooking several aspects as to why people might prefer Open Source over Free Software. Also, we generally don't link to drafts in mainspace articles until they become well, mainspace articles AFAIK. 11:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest you and everyone that read this statement to consider checking my Free Software]] (which is currently a draft) and the talk section of it regarding the topic. I don't wanna repeat myself and stuff that I have already written regarding the topic in the page and discussion section of it, with tons of references and evidence. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I see that my edits are being reverted without good resources, by the specific user. I have already talked the topic with you and you showed your miserable lack of knowledge at our discussions, yet you don't stop reverting the facts. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You're not going to convince anyone to approve your edits by behaving the way you've been. 23:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It isn't a solution to block a user to dump facts neither. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Permissive Licenses are Free Software
I see that (unsurprisingly, by a specific user) my edit regarding BSD being a free license is reverted. I suggest that specific person to take a look at what Permissive Licenses are, especially MIT and BSD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_software_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License

If you think Wikipedia is biased and wanna see it from their official sites, here you come: https://mit-license.org/ http://www.linfo.org/bsdlicense.html

DISCLAIMER: Don't respond to this with any License description made by [Open Source Initiative], as it is such a group that is big companies like Microsoft that doesn't seem to care for Free Software or even "Real core values of Open Source suggested in ESR's book". --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * As those facts are clear as sky, I have undoed the baseless revert made to my edit by the specific person, who is a friend of a guy that has the picture of fascist dictator on his page (they know themselves).--Comrade-yutyo (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Your edit was reverted because the changes were baseless. Unicorn Law is something that was defined by someone on Twitter and that definition didn't include that silly "free and open source" software part. Again, we don't link to Draft pages to my knowledge in mainspace articles. Potholing "open source advocates" to liberal is pathethic. The BSD is an open source license, and is technically also a free one but in an article about Open source, you're not going to name it as a free license because it's about open source software, not about Free software. This isn't hard to understand. 12:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In the “understanding of OSI”, literally every free license are Open Source. The software that are called as open source are just self proclaimed as such by OSI, while they are officially free and said as such (except for OSI itself and revisionist open source websites that love big companies). You say that my draft is invalid, yet contains more references than this nutcase page, which is just all about a terminology invented as a market strategy and still used as a such.--Comrade-yutyo (talk) 12:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Renaming to "Free and open-source software"
This is the go-to article on both open source and free software, and the term "Free and open-source software", while apparently disliked by the Free Software Foundation, is popular as an umbrella term. How about renaming this article (keeping redirects)? --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * There is a shorter and rougher Draft:Free Software which focuses on that part more. Some things in it may be worth mentioning in this article, for a better article on the whole. But anyway, I think of going ahead with the rename I suggested above, if there's no objections. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2023 (UTC)