Draft talk:Free Software

Formatting and stuff

I have recently added corrections to the bs of OSI to that page. I think its suitable for the Rational Wiki now. - Yutyo

It look fine so far, but it still needs polish, formatting checks, and maybe some more sources if possible. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I think its OK now, as its now the most accurate yet controversial Free Software page in the world. Nearly all of the blogs and resources in the Web misses the point of Free Software. - Yutyo

Alright, I have added reference as well. Its OK, huh? - Yutyo

Main issues i see with this are some pretty unclear wording - I'm not 100% sure what the Permissive Licenses wording is trying to say, and a lot of the wording in Free Software vs Open Source is kinda unclear nyaa. ⏣sapient_cogbag⏣ ^{[all-lowercase name pls] talk} 14:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I have clarified many of those, I guess? --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Questioning missionality

We already have a page on Open source, which makes mention of Free Software and Richard Stallmans page which makes more in-depth mention of the GNU project. This page reads more like a ton of support for Free Software rather than a page that contributes extra information that hasn't been added. At it's core, we're about exploring and refuting pseudo-sicence, authoritarianism and crank ideas. A page that supports Free Software isn't on-mission. There's useful tidbits in here (ie. NASAs OSS license being not super good), but I don't think it's enough to warrant a complete page and the information could be more useful in other pages. Also, the argument that anyone who says you can't make money from FOSS is just a corporate shill reeks of the Shill gambit and understates how hard it is as a programmer to make your entire livelihood from FOSS. For every succesful project that allows it's programmer to make a profitable livelihood, there's hunderds of small hobbyists projects that don't make it to that point. The same goes for the argument of the odd licenses. While NASA is a good example, it overlooks licenses like the ISC/MIT license, which aren't considered Free Software but are considered Open Source Software. Hell, OSS not being the same as FOSS is even admitted as such by the GNU Foundation. Don't get me wrong, I like FOSS, but this page reads more like fanwank over the idea of FOSS than a meaningful exploration of the crank that tends to seep through in these (which we already cover on the first two pages and is the only part of FOSS beyond a basic explanation of what it is that would be considered on-mission). Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 10:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@The Crow well, I don't even know where to start

1. Affiliating Permissive Licenses as "Open Source" and not Free Software is a complete bullshit. Permissive Licenses such as BSD, MIT, MPL and Apache License are Free Software LicensesPermissive Free Software Licenses[1]. Copyleft isn't an obligation of being a Free Software, but only protecting the 4 freedoms suggested by FSF What is Copyleft?[2]. Even GNU itself maintains a Permissive Free Software License which is called /GNU All permissive License. I have written about that just under the Open Source vs Free Software section but it seems like you haven't even read the page.
2. As nearly all of those "OSI-Approved Licenses" actually being Free Software ones with the exception of "NOSA", it becomes much more obvious that Open Source is only a heretic market strategy that associates already-existing Free Software movement with itself by showing itself as an umbrella, popular term that is actually being backed by big companies (Check the page and references, I don't wanna add more links that I have already added).
3. The term FOSS is even more heretical, that sub-associates itself with much-older Free Software and somehow initiates "Free" with "Gratis", while making the "so called glorious umbrella term of OSS" market-friendly. That is stupid, stupid as Free Software already doesn't mean gratis and supports commercial. Even copyleft doesn't limit commercial usage, yet only limits the theft of a free software to be used as proprietary. That isn't the subject tho as being copyleft or not doesn't have to do anything with Free Software.

CONCLUSION:As I have already written, referenced at the page and this discussion section, I hope you have understood the following:

• Free Software and Open Source are different terms, yet OSI tries to identify "permissive" Free Software as itself
• There are no any popular Open Source license that isn't Free Software, with the exception of "NOSA".
• Free Software itself is already a big movement and older than the Open Source, also has many successful company examples that I have written at the page
• Identifying Free Software as FOSS, being a sub of OSS is bullshit, because of the reasons I have written

Have a nice day!

--Comrade-yutyo (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC) - Founder of Mercode, a Free Software community.

This does zero to answer my point about missionality. I know what the difference is, I have even argued about GPL violations to people before and had them summarily resolved. The fact remains that I don't see the difference between what this draft contributes versus what we already have on Richard Stallman (see the page from Four Freedoms onwards) and Open source. The Stallman page goes into details about what FOSS is specifically and the Open Source page talks about actual nuttery that corporations like Microsoft have engaged in in the past to try and kill both open source and FOSS. What this page adds to that is... well, nothing really aside from the fallacious accusations on OSS. Also, "heretical". Come on. It's a bloody software license, not a religion/cult. Free software isn't the same as Open source. Free software places additional demands on the developer and on potential forkers, whereas Open source software doesn't do much beyond often asking for their name to be mentioned. You also didn't engage with my argument on how there is a serious argument to not prefer FOSS when it comes to the money argument without being a shill. Many types of FOSS projects just don't make it to the point of being sustainable. I quite frankly still don't fully see the argument to have this in a separate page. We already have a section about FOSS, it's on the page about Stallman and this page mostly just feels duplicitous with a rather overt undercurrent that anyone who doesn't like FOSS is an idiot or a corporate shill. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 16:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I think having a separate page for FLOSS/Free Software is important because RMS is not Free Software and in fact his (personal) influence is declining (due in part to his pretty disgusting behaviour towards others and his statements about pedophiles). As for why it's on mission, well, Free Software at least is fairly anti-authoritarian in nature. I might add some stuff to this page to do with links to maker/hacker culture and wider free culture movements at some point nyaaa ⏣sapient_cogbag⏣ ^{[all-lowercase name pls] talk} 17:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

It is also important to have a separate page, because Free Software and the associated things have very separate motivations and ideas to Open Source, even if they share some things, and covering those ideological differences is something useful nya ⏣sapient_cogbag⏣ ^{[all-lowercase name pls] talk} 17:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

That's a fair argument to keep it. I'll retract the missionality argument then. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 18:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks nya ⏣sapient_cogbag⏣ ^{[all-lowercase name pls] talk} 21:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Also stop adding bloody references on talkpages. It's annoying. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 16:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@The Crow dude, let me make that thing clear:

• Free Software isn't FOSS. Its Free Software. FOSS is literally underrating a movement that existed before Open Source and have more influence than that.
• COPYLEFT =/= FREE SOFTWARE. PERMISSIVE LICENSES =/= OPEN SOURCE. FREE SOFTWARE = SOFTWARE THAT HAS 4 FREEDOMS. OPEN SOURCE = MARKET CAMPAIGN MADE BY ESR and O'REILLY.

I have already said that in the page and the comment section, which is here. You have done the same repetitive bullshit in the Talk:Communism. Learn something before leaning over your damn keyboard. That page is much more relevant than Open Source as Open Source Initiative doesn't do anything except for commercializing false information in the favor of their donors, while FSF maintains and contributes to the community since its founded long ago before so called "open source".

I hope you understand that. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Comrade-yutyo Free and open-source software (FOSS) is software that can be classified as both free software and open-source software. They're the same bloody thing. I'm not underrating/discounting shit. FOSS is a leglible shorthand for Free Software and it always has been. You're literally the first person that takes issue with that abbreviation. The four freedoms means that copyleft + permissive license is FOSS/Free Software. That's the entire point of it. If your license is OSS compatible, it's FOSS compatible. If your license is FOSS compatible, it may or may not be OSS compatible. Permissive licenses can still be open source, but not FOSS so calm down. ERS only had to do with the initial definition of OSS, nowadays he barely has much to do with programming anymore. Hell, I like FOSS/Free Software (although I have issues with the specific way that the GNU project does it but that's besides the point). It's not repetetive bullshit, it's you failing to understand what I'm saying. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 18:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@The Crow I think I repeat myself:

• FOSS is an abbrevation invented by OSI and open source advocates, who wanna have superiority over the community as a movement. Checkout https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
• Free Software only refers to the four freedoms but don't have any obligations about how to protect it. That is why permissive free software and copyleft free software licenses are both belonging to the umbrella term of Free Software, which is a such. Poor OSI just co-operates with their comrades to make their false claim regarding free software terminology as its free in beer but it isn't. There is no single license which is only "Open Source" and not Free Software (Only NOSA is a such, which is just accepted by OSI as a thing to "prove" that "Open Source is a real thing".
• "Open Source" was firstly meant to be a market campaign invented by Eric S. Raymond, who is a libertarian racist and a person that hasn't done anything compared to Richard Stallman, who was a hacker before he was born and had written the Emacs, gcc and many other stuff by himself. Then, with the foundation of OSI and other O'Reilly-supported Open Source propaganda blogs, they have tried to make "Open Source" an umbrella term for the code being open, and they even get to the damn stupid point that Open Source is the code that can be commercial while Free Software means copyleft, which is ALL FALSE. If you wanna know the reality, please go read the damn licenses, bruh. https://mit-license.org/ http://www.linfo.org/bsdlicense.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_software_license

Please read stuff. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 20:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Moving this to draftspace

I propose making this a draft, redirecting to open source, and perhaps merging useful stuff into that article. Aside from the debate above about whether it's missional to also have this article, it's much poorer in quality, and currently not written as a complement to the other article. It's a mess to have both which each read like the only article on an overlapping topic. I'll move this to draftspace if no one complains. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)