Talk:Freeware

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of Computing WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to computers and computing. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale

Archives

February 2008

[edit] Criteria/definition

I removed the following 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)

There is some software which may be considered freeware, but which has limited distribution; that is, it may only be downloaded from a specific site, and cannot be redistributed. Hence, this software wouldn't be freely redistributable software. According to the basic definition, that software would be freeware; according to stricter definitions, it wouldn't be.

The term freeware may include public domain software and proprietary software. However, freeware does not include such loss leaders as crippleware, adware, shareware, nagware or demoware, where there is a deferred cost to be paid to use the software. Besides a monetary price, such a cost may be having to give up part of your screen in order for the program to display advertising; continually being reminded about a "pro" version of the program via nag screens; having to use the program quickly before it becomes disabled; etc.

[edit] More emphasis on license?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)