This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

old talk

There seems to be a similiar page called Free software. Those two should be merged.

This page has enough detail that it should probably be renamed "Software Licenses." All subcategories should be given their own pages. The page for freeware should have less detailed descriptions of each type of non-freeware software. Aguydude 06:40 Nov 4, 2002 (UTC)

May I suggest adding the term "demo" under shareware/crippleware or as a separate category since that may be a more familiar term? - Brettz9 20:18 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)

I placed them in a "===-level" section, Related software types, to distinguish them from actual freeware types. --AnOddName 03:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, how about starting pages to provide links by operating system to the various categories of freeware/shareware/etc. to either a Wikipedia site discussing the specific software or to the company/programmer? Although sites such as Versiontracker.com may already perform this function by designating items as freeware or shareware, I think it may be nice to subcategorize freeware further (e.g., some so-called "freeware" turns out to be really "crippleware") Having pages for specific software would also provide a forum for providing information on software not available at the company site or elsewhere. - Brettz9 20:18 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)

Is there a term for software (such as bribeware?) for software which was made freeware by someone paying the programmer to make it free for everyone? [[User:Brettz9|Brettz9 (talk)]] 19:02, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Do you mean right now, or before you wrote that comment? ;) I've seen that before, and bribeware sounds fairly appropriate. michaelb 16:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Is beerware necessary to include?

I don't think "Beerware" is necessary to include as main class of freeware, as it, at least to me, seems too obscure. Although I've run into all of the other sorts of freeware, I've never seen Beerware, and, quite honestly, it seems to me somewhat absurd and unnecessary to include as a main type of freeware. michaelb 16:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Beerware is silly. How often is it that you're even in the same TIME ZONE as the person who wrote the software you're using? (Cult Of Personality 18:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)).

Splitting of the Free Software article into Free software and Freeware

I split Free software into two parts, Free software and Freeware and put any leftovers here, they should be merged into either one. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 15:12, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

Should we have a Freeware Archives section?

It seems like the Freeware Archives section is just a perfect source of people putting their fav freeware site on there. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_web_directory, eh? JesseW 09:31, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree, and have now deleted these links. Fredrik | talk 16:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Definition of Freeware?

In my experience, in common usage today among the masses (and, as I understand it, as it was used on BBS networks of old) freeware tends to only refer to freely redistributable software (that is also gratis) as opposed to any software that is free of charge. (Indeed it is questionable whether gratis software can be a category of software at all as not only is its price not part of the nature of the software, but because `software', by definition, refers to the intangible idea itself which is usually avaiable in multiple physical forms at different prices.)

Although, I am also aware that people have probably tried to use the word freeware to mean just about everything (from free software to any software that is in the (non-copyright) public domain); maybe its ambiguity should be made clear on the page.

-- Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley 18:05, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

You lost me there, guy. What's all this about free software not being software? And even more confusing, what does the medium software is/can be delivered on and the price have to do with the definition of software - a set of instructions that performs a meaningful or useful tastk? (Cult Of Personality 18:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)).

(Q1) I said nothing of the kind. (Q2) That was, I think, my point. —Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _talk _contrib 01:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. I see the word freeware applied to open source all the time. I think the description presented in the wiki article is archaic at best. 64.174.75.5 21:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of disambiguation notice

At the top of this article, there was the following disambiguation notice:

This article refers to software available free of charge. For "free software" as defined by the Free Software Foundation, see Free software.

I removed it. I think few people will be looking for free as in speech software here, and someone who is needs only look down to the list of categories of software distinct from freeware.

- Jrn 07:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I removed it again. I'm going to try to make the distinction clean in the text of the article. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:41, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Now, the disambiguation links are for proprietary software and open-source software. There's even less ambiguity with those terms, then there is free software. --69.54.29.23 13:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Redistribution

I note the phrase "usually carries a license that permits redistribution". I wonder if this requires more qualification, even if it is true for a majority, as people may assume that it is always OK to redistribute software simply because it was free.

A classic example is Adobe Reader, where the standard license does not allow redistribution. Adobe offer a redistribution license, with strings - e.g. the licensee must cease distributing old versions when new ones become available. Such restrictions also provide the copyright holder with the ability to change their mind, start to charge, and not see continued (legal) distribution of the free stuff.

Is it useful to quote or consider an analogy with books: I'm not allowed to photocopy a book and give the photocopies away. This is true even if the publisher made a free gift, to me, of the book? Just a thought, it might help to clarify the difference between public domain and free software, which I think confuses many. Notinasnaid 10:44, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This brings up another question: what, exactly, is redistrobution? No, I'm not saying this to be fecitious.

I work in a company with about 80 employees. The IT department has a folder on the network with all the install files for all the software, so if an idiot breaks his computer, they can reinstall everything without digging the CDs out of a vault, or re-downloading things. Is this redistrobution? They're making the software available to a person other than the IT installer guy. But only on the company's computers. The software never leaves our network. (Cult Of Personality 18:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)).

Well if one subscribes to the philosophy that companies are people too (as most modern legal systems, bizarrely, do) and you are using the redistributed software for corporate purposes then one wouldn't consider it redistribution, but if it is proprietary software that requires agreement to a contract (i.e.: EULA) that contract almost certainly would consider it redistribution even if local copyright laws don't. —Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _talk _contrib 01:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that free redistribution is part of the definition of freeware (see my post further up). —Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _talk _contrib 01:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

superset of "free software"

There are other forms of distribution that allow a user to receive the software at no cost, but are generally not considered freeware.

This is an opinion, not a fact. And it does'nt even say whose opinion it is. Let's ask RMS if he considers free software to be a distinct class from freeware. I just was reading the free software definition at fsf.org and it looks like Stallman's idea of "free software" is a subset of "freeware":

it's given away at no cost
it comes with a license that stops you from doing certain things

Okay, all it really stops you from doing is claim that you wrote it yourself. And you can't mix it in certain ways with proprietary software.

And since I'm not an expert, here's a question? Can you "wrap" a free software product in a non-free wrapper? Like make a GUI interface to a command-line-only program? I think the answer is no - not without special permission. I'll ask again at talk:free software. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:40, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

If you're writing a GUI program that launches the command-line program as a separate process, and you're distributing the command-line program (which I'll call CLP) legitimately under its licence terms (if at all), then there's nothing to stop you. The only difficulty I can see is that if the CLP has a licence term to the effect that you may not include it in a commercial software distribution, then you can commercially distribute the wrapper as long as you require the CLP to be obtained separately.

OTOH if your GUI program has code from the CLP compiled into it, then your program is a derivative work. So it depends on what the licence of the CLP says about derivative works. -- Smjg 15:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

This is in fact very common. For an example, think of PowerPoint Viewer ( free ) verses PowerPoint ( expensive ). You could call the viewer program a "wrapper" in this sense, because it steps "on top of" output from the full version and makes the binary files useable.

If that example isn't clear, think of all the software products that use SQL Server Express or Oracle Express. (Cult Of Personality 18:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)).

The FSF has a nice graphic that shows "free download" software is a mixed superset of free and proprietary software. See Image:Gpl and open-source.jpg. --69.54.29.23 21:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This article was seemingly written by Free Software advocates

Considering the amount of this article that discusses contrasts between freeware and free software, it seems pretty clear that this article was written by free software advocates who are interested in suggesting that free software is better than freeware. Since I'm a free software advocate myself and actually believe this, it doesn't bother me too much, nor do I think that the text in the article rises to the level of POV.

However, it would probably be a better article from the point of view of computer history if it discussed the role and history of freeware in computing, in addition to trying to distinguish freeware accurately from other kinds of software. Much of this article is currently dedicated to a careful statement of what freeware is not. Schoen 05:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree totally with your remark here. When talking about freeware among common people it simply means gratis, and its opposite is payware.

Those are the two big categories for the general public. Freeware is everything you can get for free over internet, and which is not too much crippled by adware, spyware, nags, registration, etc..

Linux is a totally free operating system, free as in gratis.

Few people know anything about open source, GPL and GNU etc..

The editors in wikipedia who write about software are not talking to the general public and do not use common language. They are very often people who are fascinated by this debate over open source, Stallman, GNU, etc, which the initiated knows as a nearly religious war between different views.

And a quite useless war, because more and more programs are becoming freeware, and more and more open source.

Typical for young thinkers, to find a train that's moving ahead, standing on the front of it they wave flags and banners and feel that they have created something. Beating each other over the head with their flag poles, to let some of the hot air out.

But they are also confusing the general public with lots of strange words and this eternal definition which involves free beer, somehow..

It makes it more difficult to write informative pages about software without being interrupted by these open source prophets who want their special vocabulary to rule. Roger4911 21:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

JohnX: Is this article about freeware or an article dedicated to the promotion of Free Software as defined by the FSF? Just wondering... JohnX

Roger4911:

Yes, one might wonder.

I think the page should at least start off from concepts the international readers can understand.

I should start with something like this:

Freeware.

To most people there are two main categories of software, freeware and payware.

But there are many different types of freeware.

The most important categories of freeware are open-source freeware and proprietary freeware. Proprietary means that somebody owns the copyright, owns the software.

Open source means that the source code is available to the public, and anybody who knows how to write programs can change it as he likes.

There are usually restrictions for how you can handle open-source software. One common rule is that you cannot take free open-source software and sell it, or change it and sell it. The author(s) of the program is/are giving the program away for free, so they do not want anybody to sell it later. You may change it as you like and give it away, but not sell it.

Another big category is free open-source software which you are allowed to change and sell. This is how many commercial variants of Linux have been created. Roger4911 21:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that introduction is generally good, but it makes some mis-statements.

Proprietary does not mean that "somebody owns the copyright, owns the software". This is true of all software(with the possible exception of software in the public domain). A better sentence might be "Proprietary means that a single person(or company) controls the software, and only they can change it or distribute it."
Very few, if any, free software or open-source licenses prevent anyone from selling the software. The third paragraph is simply incorrect. A better paragraph might be "The most common restriction present in nearly all open-source and free software licenses are a requirement that the text of the license be included in any copies that are distributed. The authors of the program are giving the program away for free, so they want everyone who gets a copy to know of their work, and that they gave it away to the community. The most commonly used open-source/free software license also requires that if you make a program using the software as part of it, you have to provide source code with every copy you distribute. You can always change it as you like and give or sell as many copies of it to anyone you want."

I'd be happy to provide references and details on any of the claims made above, if requested. Thanks for all your work on the 'pedia! JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

It's a shame this discussion page is as disorganised as the page whose disorganisation it seeks to criticise. Now, Freeware is different from Free Software. It is not true that one is a subcategory of the other. They are different. Free software in my concept of the English language is not Freeware. Freeware is closed source. As far as I'm aware, that is the context in which the phrase was coined. I can remember lots of binaries, both freeware and shareware (another separate category to my mind), floating about in the 80s. No code was ever seen. Freeware existed almost in a different sphere from Free or Open Source Software. For instance, Data Becker, a German IT publishing house, had a large series of books that combined free- and shareware for DOS and Windows with their own documentation for it. They did not distribute Free software, and there was no code made available for the software they did distribute, although they did encourage donating to the authors. In this series of books, software was classified into three categories: shareware, freeware and public domain. Because these occurred in similar quantities in the series, I would advocate that it is a useful classification. As an aside, shareware was usually limited in its usefulness by either having features disabled, throwing up nagging messages at intervals, or ceasing to function after a set time. - Samsara 22:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The article seems pretty fair as it stands. Expansion of the history and significance of Freeware might be a nice thing, but is (IMHO) a distinct issue from Neutrality.

I think that it is actually useful to distinguish between Freeware and Free Software, since many old-timers (i.e. myself) do implicitly think of the two as distinct. Some who have not grown up with the two might be confused by the closeness of names. Darkonc 21:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

As a big open source advocate I really think we did a great job with propaganda on this wikipedia entry. Well done guys!

Definitions

This glossary might be of use; the site concerned is allied to the alt.comp.freeware Usenet newsgroup. Andy Mabbett 15:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

An example case: Freeware in chemistry software for Linux

In response to

"As the open source free software is taking over in the Linux world, those who speak about freeware nowadays are usually talking about free software in the Windows world."

I am the maintainer of Linux4Chemistry, which aims to be a comprehensive list of all chemistry software available for Linux. Software is divided into Open Source (having an OSI-approved license, or Public Domain), Freeware (not Open Source but available at no cost to anyone), Free for academics (not Freeware or Open Source), Shareware and Commercial (everyone has to pay).

Despite the claim that open source free software is taking over in the linux world, there are 82 Open Source programs, and about 160 Freeware (some of which may be reclassified as Free for academics, once I get around to it). Note that many of the Freeware programs provide the source; it's just that their licences are not Open Source.

In summary, most of the no cost software in chemistry that runs on Linux is Freeware, and not Open Source. Baoilleach 12:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)baoilleach

That is a good point. I would support you rephrasing this to a more encyclopedic phrasing, and changing the statement you mentioned to more accurately reflect this. Thanks for bringing this to our(i.e. anyone who reads this talk page) attention! JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite comments

I've tried to rewrite some of this in a more neutral tone. Some of it is still a little untidy, but I can't see anything that's obviously too pov. Is there any part that anyone thinks still needs npov work? (One person can't really decide a npov, obvously enough :) MartinRe 17:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone really use the term "Freeware" to refer to GPL sofware?

I would argue that the answer is definitely no, except for people who really don't know anything about software licensing.

Certainly, I would imagine that people who have invested thousands of hours of work on GPL software, or billions of dollars of salary (such as IBM), would object to calling the result "freeware."

One could do some googling to research this question, but I suppose the results would be "original research." Some authoritative references are needed. Would Groklaw http://www.groklaw.net/ be considered adequate?

Archimerged 22:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Freeware makes no reference to licencing, just cost. You also have to differinate between use of the term, and accuracy of the term. A term can be accurate, yet rarely used. If the accepted definition of freeware is "at no cost", and if the product in question is available at no cost, then I believe it is perfectly correct to call it freeware, objections notwithstanding[1]. Because "no cost" is not a requirement of the GPL[2], I think it's simplier to break it down to two, independent questions:

Is the product available at no cost? - If Yes, it's freeware, otherwise it's not.
Does the product licence grant certain permissions? If Yes, it's free software, otherwise it's not.

The fact that the two questions are distinct is what I was trying to put into words in the "not mutually exclusive". However, I was also trying to show that although freeware only means "no cost", common usuage has the implication of "no cost + nonfree licence", as a product with "no cost + free licence" is described with the emphasis solely on the free licence part. MartinRe 18:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that the article as it stands makes my brain hurt a bit with all the gymnastics around various definitions of free. IMO, it's way more comblicated than it has to be. As suggested above "freeware" isn't really a term one sees used in the context of FOSS. This from the FSF: "The term "freeware" has no clear accepted definition, but it is commonly used for packages which permit redistribution but not modification (and their source code is not available)." IMO, that hits the nail pretty much right on the head with a minimum of words. Basinrange 20:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You could change the article to refelect that, no problem Sega381 00:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems that more concern needs to address the fact that there is no formal definition is established for the term freeware. I've seen freeware used for all sorts of things by authors and distributors alike. It's not a legal term. However, the article presents itself as representitive as providing an official definition. It isn't even close. This article needs to be more objective, do less comparisons to other types of software, and needs to make very clear there is not official or common definition for the term. Right now, it takes a very POV slainted definition based on one group's opinions about the matter. 64.174.75.5 21:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"Payware"?

This is off-topic, but what is the term for software that's not free and not available for free trial? ··gracefool |☺ 23:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

not free as in ...? :)

If it's not free as in beer (payware?) not free software (proprietary?), and not available for trial, that sounds just like normal software. In any case, it's impossible to stick one label on software, as the critera for each are often independent. I'm sure you can have free software which is payware, and also proprietary software which is freeware, but trying to apply all possible labels would get unwieldy. So, to answer the question, there is no "the term", all you can do is look at the software characteristics and see which term is relevant for that aspect. All IME, Regards, MartinRe 00:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sourcecode

I deleted: Freeware software released without sourcecode is proprietary. Sleigh 15:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

External links

I removed this from the main page as they currently don't appear to follow the guideline. - brenneman ^{L} 09:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Added a link to the freeware wiki site. http://freewarewiki.pbwiki.com/ Includes reviews, one of the more useful sites on the web. Though needs a layout makeover... Cyb.tachyon 15:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

External links from Abandonware

There are several external links in the Abandonware article that may be better off in this page, such as Liberated Games (which is about once-propietary, now freeware games), and other. Should we move them over here?Sega381

They were moved to the List of commercial games released as freeware.Sega381 02:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Proprietary software released as freeware

What is the purpose of listing software that used to cost money and now doesn't? Are these packages notable freeware packages? They look like old software that is now freeware. The intro hints that they "were proprietary", but now they aren't. No, freeware software without the source code is still proprietary. --69.54.29.23 13:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they don't seem very useful or noteworthy. They are actually leftovers from a list that was split, so it probably would be ok to delete that section.Sega381 19:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Motivations

I think the motivations I moved from the bottom of the article to the top are unsubstantiated and proably don't belong in the intro. However, they don't belong under any other of the headings, and we might as well lead with unsourced statements, rather than ignoring them and putting them at the end of the article, out of sight. I'm happy with the uncited sentences being deleted, but I'm willing to have somebody verify them. --69.54.29.23 21:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Adding External Link - Freeware Forum

Dear all,

I would like to add a link here to a great freeware forum called CWF that has a growing community of dedicated gamers and was set up for as collection of links to freeware games and the discussion of games, to discuss commercial games and other things. Here is the link:

http://forum.connect-webdesign.dk/index.php

I did not want to add it without approval here first.

Thanks,

Parvini

Adding External Link - Great Freeware Website

Dear all,

I would like to add a link here to a great freeware website called Freeware Links. Here is the link:

http://freeware-links.com/

I did not want to add it without approval here first.

Thanks,

M. E. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.205.240.140 (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Likewise, Google Ads are prominant across the top of the page. --AceVentura

Adding external link - I want a Freeware Utility to...

http://www.econsultant.com/i-want-freeware-utilities/

This webpage has a good list and doesn't have any adverts that I can see. 203.173.208.27 18:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is actually splattered with blocks of advertisements although it is a good list. Other good lists can be found that are free of ads. I will try to provide a few soon. --AceVentura

Adding external link - Community of freeware programmers

Hi,

http://www.polishwords.com.pl

This is an international freeware programmers community. No adverticements, no carges and so on. Please visit and point out your opinions if its worth adding to this article as an external link.

greatings, Tom Smykowski POLAND —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.146.224.10 (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

In my view it doesn't seem to have enough material to be worth adding as a link. I vote to remove. Aarontay 12:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As for new this group consists of 10 programmers all over the world willing to create and develop freeware applications for no money, it's rather new project but fast groving, and think that it's the first one ever and unique. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.18.236.34 (Tom Smykowski) 09:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Tom, as commendable the project is, it just isn't very notable or useful yet for that matter. Aarontay 12:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Aarontay, could you please explain what do you mean in the term "isn't useful"? Sites with a freeware list are useful because they give solutions that were created before, we are creating freeware on demand. It's just an unique idea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.18.236.34 (Tom Smykowski) 12:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Tom, you might want to learn to sign your comments rather than relying on the bot. Btw it's funny you talk about sites with freeware lists being useful, it's just that your website has literally no content at all right now besides one alarm clock application! And looking at the forum I don't get a sense that the project is even that active. I don't want to get personal but there are lots of people with "unique" ideas (and I don't see what's so unique about this one), but until they actually get off the ground, they are just that an idea. This isn't the place to try to get support for your project. Aarontay 13:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Aarontay, it's like you would say: "what a funny singer if he doesn't have any CD published", what you say is just funny. If you don't see anything unique in this idea, please place here some links to other freeware programmers groups, I would like to know them better, but as for now , your comment is just a blah blah blah without any content, best regards, bear007 13:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

external link: freeware search engine

Hi folks, I made up a freeware-searchengine recently via the google coop. It searches a few sources for freeware and opensource software and allows finetuning (only from well known review-sites, only opensource, online online/offline software). Do you consider it as a useful link? http://google.de/coop/cse?cx=015613924451872650345%3Anee7xglr0ha Best regards, David

(unsigned by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.173.183.248 , possibly David Schubert)

I tested it. It works remarkably well and saves time jumping from one major freeware site to another looking for something rare. In fact, I saved the link to your "freeware search engine" for personal use. Nice work! No, I do not object to the fact that Google provides it for free.

I will add this link to the freeware page, immediately and without further discussion, which apparently needs "references or sources". This article will fail to serve people if it is exclusively a scholarly discussion about the philosophy, definition and legal framework of freeware. It needs to be a practical portal to the best programs and information resources within the freeware community. That is what is valuable to the reader. --AceVentura

Need "references or sources" is not the same as adding external links! It's about supporting the text with references.Aarontay 09:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not (of course). So, where are the formal references or sources you seek in abundance to support the text? They barely exist at all because very few people (even academics) are stupid enough to waste their time writing long, boring, exhaustively-detailed papers for journals about what freeware is. --AceVentura

I think you misunderstand what references means. It doesn't always mean 100% peer reviewed academic papers. E.g there are tons of definitions thrown around in the article, where do they come from? Same for statements about the history. How do we know they are correct? Even a reference to a FAQ would be better than nothing. Aarontay 20:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It is just too obvious. --AceVentura

Yeah so obvious that people get into big pissing matches over the definitions. :) Aarontay 20:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Besides, papers contribute nothing to the stock of programs available for the freeware community. Better to spend one's time writing a useful freeware program. Yes, useful links are all you will get from me. --AceVentura

Hmm while I appreciate adding useful links (i do it myself) ,and the guys who write freeware I think you should understand that Wikipedia is not a link farm and isn't meant to be a comprehensive links to freeware, nor is it meant for the "freeware community". Trying to turn this page into a "practical portal to the best programs and information resources within the freeware community" is not withing the scope of Wikipedia. Much better is if you create such a portal and we link to it. Aarontay 20:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

2 external links: freeware at WinSite

These are marginal cases. I submit these 2 links for approval by other editors because the web pages where these freeware programs are readily available for download from one source contain ads.

Freeware Utilities - A vast 30-page list of freeware utilities available for download.

Misc. Freeware - A vast 30-page list of freeware of various categories available for download.

Please decide and communicate in a timely manner?--AceVentura

I'm not too wild about adding them, but definitely adding both would be overkill since they are going to the same domain http://www.winsite.com/free/ Aarontay 20:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding external links

I'm sick and tired of watching spammers who come here just to insert external links . My question to those of you who want to insert one website with freeware links, can you justify why add *that* site with lots of links as compared to a dozen other sites that do the same? All of the sites added looks interchangeable to me really. Aarontay 16:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

ya I would love to, which site do you see that has no ads in the site plus only real freeware, no adware, spyware, trial ware, or shareware? plus we at klitetools.com link back to you guys also. the discussion is freeware so I'm posting a link to real freeware, what do I have to gain from your so called spamming? I got no ads on the site so you can't say I'm trying to get traffic, plus I got over 4000 visitors a day, I don't need your traffic, what I do need is for people to enjoy a real freeware site with no ads. -unsigned by 207.172.89.137

Yes, web sites that host real freeware and do not advertise are rare. After all, the bandwidth is expensive. Guess what? Kool Lite Tools does not actually host anything! Instead, it redirects the user to another web site to handle the downloads. Although I have nothing against fans, this is precisely the kind of web site that does not belong here. Besides, you have vandalized all of the other external links, some of which provide direct downloads, to promote your own fan web site. Expect a reversion very soon. -AceVentura

we do host lots of files, some download are downloaded from the original maker of the freeware so what? are you saying that if I host the file myself that would change everything? do you really think its smart to download from a third party instead of the maker of the app itself? again, what fan website? its a freeware site and get it in that thick head of yours, I got over 5 thousand visitors a day I don't need your none existing traffic. your loss, its people like you that just makes wiki worthless these days, I was one of the people who promoted wiki when you guys where not big at all but that is ok, I will stop and I will remove the link to wiki also, I don't want to affiliated with people who can't tell a good site from a spammer. good day. -unsigned by 207.172.89.137

The link to DMOZ is all that's needed here. Wikipedia is not the place for a long list of links. People can go to DMOZ for that. --Aude (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You must admit that a few of the most active editors on this page hold extremely-stringent criteria for the inclusion of any links whatsoever. In practice, you (plural) are making even the best and most appropriate external links impossible to add. This is actually a violation of typical Wikipedia standards in evidence on a vast number of other pages. Furthermore, it is not your place to radically, unilaterally enforce a policy that sharply departs from Wikipedia's at will.

As a constructive compromise, I am willing to ally in excluding ALL links to freeware web sites that do not offer: (1) a very large selection of programs and (2) host 100% of their downloads directly- nothing less! There is only one web site I know of that meets both criteria ... WinSite. Yet again, I wish to add it. -AceVentura

You seem very insistent on that site, so much so that it seems like you want the link here to promote the site. I suspect the same is true with the other site being promoted by the anon, and many other links added to the article. That's specifically not allowed under Wikipedia's external links guidelines. I don't know for sure if that's the case for your site or the others. Regardless, winsite has what I consider an "objectionable amounts of advertising", with pop-up ads. Wikipedia needs to avoid links to such sites, per our external links guidelines. The best thing to do is only link to DMOZ, which is a link directory where all these sites can be listed. --Aude (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Personally there are some sites that I would like to add which I think are best based on other criteria, but I recognize that all it will come down to is a personal preference. For instance I think Winsite is not a very worthy addition.Aarontay 08:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That must me a joke, klitetools.com has not ads banners or anything and you want to add a site that is full of ads and popups? and its not even a freeware site. -unsigned by 207.172.89.137

Firstly, there are zero perfect freeware web sites (i.e., 100% direct downloads, large selection of programs, no ads) due to economic realities that some militants refuse to face and deal with.

Secondly, YES, WinSite is a commercial web site as a whole with banner ads at the top of many pages. I also find the ads annoying. The link I placed does not concern the general web site, though. It pinpoints pages dedicated exclusively to freeware.

Thirdly, I am not associated with WinSite in any way. I am simply trying to provide the reader a convenient direct link to actually obtain freeware. -AceVentura

This link has WinSite listed, as well as a number of other choices for users. Let's not pick one site here over others, and avoid problems altogether. --Aude (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not want problems, either. However, I have a problem with both DMOZ links. They merely redirect the reader to vast link farms without any clear direction of exactly where they need to navigate to find and download quality freeware (versus bugware, shareware, commercial programs and other stale alternatives). Even if the reader does not get lost in a sea of choices, the indirectness of such links diminishes their usefulness greatly. Why not give the reader at least ONE direct link to a location where they can choose amongst and download freeware programs exclusively? -AceVentura

Well Winsite is not a very good site if you go by the criteria of giving guidance because it doesn't give that many reviews (none for freeware?), and are just listing of links anyway.. That's not an improvement! If we were listing sites, I would rather list sites that give good comprehensive reviews of freeware! I'm not too sure why you think a site hosting downloads is a important criteria, it's just a click away anyway, and I would rather download from the source than a software listing site. Aarontay 08:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me guess? Most of the active editors who hawk this page are paid agents for the software giants pretending to be freeware purists hellbent against even a trace of practical compromise. It is your mission to turn this page into a confusing, useless mass of philosophical rambling thereby preventing anyone who is seeking freeware from finding any. [I am being facetious, not seriously paranoid.] -AceVentura

I hope you are not always like this when you don't get your way. Aarontay 08:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I think the DMOZ link to "software" that lists WinSite is not helpful. Note that WinSite is described there as a "shareware archive". Although this concise classification is generally correct, it would disencourage almost anyone from taking a closer look, searching for and successfully finding any freeware there. I will revert it soon. So, we are back to only 1 link. -AceVentura

external link: Freeware Files

Freeware Files

I have submitted this link previously. It has been swept aside by edit wars between spammers and freeware extremists. [I choose NOT to belong to either group.] I doubt anyone has actually taken a close look at it. This is the web site where I personally obtained most of the 100+ freeware programs I have and use. Like ALL other large freeware web sites, it is imperfect. There are ads in the margins.

1. This is the largest collection of freeware programs I know of. It is well-organized by categories and sub-categories.

2. Every program has a description. Most programs have at least 1 review. This web site is indexed and searchable.

3. NEARLY 100% of the freeware programs listed can be downloaded directly from Freeware Files servers. [The exceptions may be cases where the developer forbids others from hosting the file.] The latest versions are almost always listed there.

4. For most files, 2-3 download options exist since Freeware Files allows the developer and other mirrors to share in providing bandwidth. This makes it highly unlikely that you will not get your download even if a technical problem exists at your first choice.

5. All hosted files are free from adware, spyware, viri, etc.

I would like to add this one link. Please seriously consider it and reply in a timely manner.

-AceVentura

It's quite a spammy link, by any standard. I fail to see how it differs from the other hundreds of spammy links it will open the doors to. If people want to read about freeware they read an encyclopaedia. If people want to download freeware they should use Google or Dmoz. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No argument that there is spam. [Bandwidth costs money. Freeware fanatics hate spam but they never donate any money to support freeware providers. They use the convenient, selfish rationale that it would no longer be freeware if they did!] The spam is not obnoxious at Freeware Files which is to say the ads in the margins do not interfere with navigation. -AceVentura

I notice you fail to answer zzuuzz's question about what makes this site that you are pushing for so special, besides the fact that you use it and it hosts files. I use other sites , why should we go for your site? I have no problems with external links that are unique , but freeware download sites are a dime a dozen, none of them really stand out, it's not as if , if the user doesn't use freewarefiles.com and uses something else (say Majorgeeks) it is the end of the world. Plus this whole obsession with sites that host files, what's the deal about that? I would rather download off the original author's site. If you ask me, the value of a freeware listing site is if it provides a real evaluation (not silly 1 paragraph user contributed reviews) and review to help one decide whether it is what one wants. . Aarontay 14:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that people should be able to read about freeware here. I disagree that people should not be able to find a single useful link to download freeware here. Furthermore, I think your attitude is negative and counter-productive. The "external links" section should not be nearly empty and useless. It exists for a reason.

-AceVentura

I agree with User:zzuuzz. Wikipedia is not the place to post example links on general topics. You wouldn't post the url to your local chapel's website on the Lutheranism article, no matter how big or notable it is. The url in question does not add any quality to the article. Tuxide 19:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

So, you want an article about "freeware", a class of software applications, to totally deprive the reader of any resources with which to directly obtain any freeware? I consider this irresponsible- fuzzy thinking, dereliction of duty or vandalism on the part of some editors.

Take a look at this Wikipedia page ...

Steganography

Note that the purpose of the article is primarily to explain to the reader what steganography is. This is similar to the primary purpose of the article on freeware. However, the article on steganography is better developed and more helpful, in part because it has a rich section of "external links" including numerous applications that can be downloaded. How better to make the reader fully understand what steganography, a specialized type of software applications, is than by experience.

Do you finally get it? Can you now see how far out-of-line you are with established Wikipedia policy?

-AceVentura

In other words, you mean WP:ALLORNOTHING. Yes I know what steganography is. I have books on it, and the urls on that article don't contribute much. I would expect external links going to appropriate sources that detail the history of steganography, or a picture of some bald guy with some message written on his head. Tuxide 20:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

So, you presume that the steganography page is out-of-line instead of the freeware page. Disappointing.

There are a vast number of Wikipedia pages dedicated to software applications with a structure more closely resembling the steganography page than the freeware page. With only 1 external link, the freeware page looks naked. More importantly, it is virtually useless. The dishonest lengths some people will go to in order to NOT get the point never ceases to amaze me. -AceVentura

how to design a dam

The previous section was becoming too fragmented and chronologically disordered.

There is apprehension amongst most anti-spam editors of this page that admitting even ONE freeware web site link must "open the floodgates to a deluge of spam". By intelligent filtering, this need not be the case. After all, we are in control here.

By requiring any acceptable "external link" to satisfy a number of important quality criteria, I was able to propose no more than TWO external links (WinSite- Freeware & Freeware Files) which met my standard for inclusion. I encourage other editors to propose a different set of quality criteria that makes more sense to them than mine. -AceVentura

There is little need to come up with "quality citeria" when clearly it comes down to a matter of personal choice. The fact is each freesite site is pretty much interchangable. That is the point. You want to come up with your own personal rating system and rank top 10 freeware sites based on your personal opinion feel free to do it on your own website. It seems clear that the concensus here is editors have better things to do then to get involved in a irrelevant, splitting hairs judgements Aarontay 21:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The previous message by Aarontay makes it evident that everyone on both sides of this argument has already obtained the programs they wanted by using various, imperfect freeware web sites.So, the fact that they are indispensible resources has been irrefutably established. Listing 1-2 extremely-select freeware web sites is an important way to utilize the damned-near-empty and damned-near-useless "external links" section. Otherwise, we are being ingrates to the freeware web sites from which we obtained our downloads and rudely burning the bridges for all computer users who follow behind us in search of quality freeware. -AceVentura

Sigh. You miss the point. I'm certainly not losing sleep over the fact that everyone doesn't look for freeware or download freeware from the same sites I do. Why? because they are all the same practically, and I'm not arrogant enough to think that my favourite is the absolute gem that everyone must visit and use or the world ends. :) Aarontay 21:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"We got all our stuff. To Hell with everyone else!" ???

No, I don't think that way.

-AceVentura

What are you talking about? Someone who follows the general link and clicks on any of the links there will get all their stuff too. Given the fact that despite an obvious majority (all but one actually) on the issue, it seems to me that by continuing to debate, someone is indeed going around with the "To hell with everyone else!" attitude, but it's not me I'm afraid. Aarontay 21:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Aarontay- You seem obsessed with getting the last word and unnecessarily, in a hateful, countermanding and close-minded manner. Yes, you definitely have a "to Hell with everyone else" attitude- the spammers with the readers and constructive editors alike!

You have wasted 2 months of my time explaining a simple task I was trying to accomplish to people (such as you) who fail to comprehend basic logic or at least, pretend to. Every time I went into more exhaustive detail I imagined "Surely, someone will finally understand this time." and this effort will be worthwhile. In the end, I accomplished nothing on this page because you arrogantly refused to give your permission. Yet ironically, you imagine yourself to have somehow earned ample rights to be annoyed with me.

I will not waste any more time here. I am signing-off now. Just get the last word one more time (most likely, in a predictably rude and counter-productive manner) and then please just do likewise.

Parting shots! Yes, definitely- TWO.

1. You are a disruptive, lazy editor who is a menace to productive, conscientious editors because you enjoy abusing your petty power.

2. Little forethought is evident within your messages.

-AceVentura

vs. Shareware

Not to distract from the endless battle over links, but the comparison with shareware seems rather slanted, e.g. the reference to "hidden costs." In my experience--at least going back a few years--much shareware was very explicitly marketed as "try before you buy" software where you were required to pay if you continued to use the software past a specified period--even though features weren't deactivated or anything like that. To be sure, "shareware" has tended to morph over time into various forms of limited-time demos. In any case, shareware is typically software that you're expected to pay for, so describing it as having some hidden costs seems unnecessarily provocative. 02:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Freeware and Open Source confusion

When the Infobox is created on the Wikipedia page for a software product can we make it standard practice to put "Freeware, Open-Source" or "Freeware, Closed-Source", or perhaps introduce a new field below it, such as:
Licence: Freeware
Source-Type: Closed-Source
.

Currently I feel that without including the source type it can create ambiguty as people may believe "Freeware" and "Open Source" always mean the same thing which is not always true: many companies, for example, will allow freeware to be used (under internal policies, of course, not freely) but not if it is Open Source due to fears over the software's code being "too open" for others to see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.217.15.46 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 14 January 2008