User talk:GNUadeen

Look, I don't want to start an edit war here but Google and Facebook are proper nouns. That means they should be capitalised. "Free" software and (free) "Open Source" software have different meanings. And please read articles before you edit them. --sneak (talk) 06:53, 10 May 2022 (CEST)

>Look, I don't want to start an edit war here

You just did, I declare a GNU/Jihad.

>Google and Facebook are proper nouns. That means they should be capitalised.

I feel like capitalising them give these things respect, when they deserve none. Fine, I won't change these words as you asked me.

>"Free" software and (free) "Open Source" software have different meanings.

Oh, we got here an "open source" infidel.

No, not one person or business has called gratis, proprietary software, "free software" - they say "freeware", "for free", or "it's free" - any readers will very quickly learn what free software means even if they misunderstand it at first.

"open source" is a much worse term, as it's as confusing as hell. The only natural meaning is; "you can look at the source code", so that's what almost all people take it to mean.

Good luck explaining the 10 "open source" requirements to someone and having them remember it - in most cases they'll go away with; "you can look at the source code".

It is high heresy to refer to free software licensed under the GPLv{2,3}, expat, ISC, BSD {0,1,2,3}-clause as "open source".

Anyway, it's simply wrong to label software licensed under the GPLv{2,3} as "open source", as "open source" is not written in the license - "free software" is.

My future edits with have links to sources.

>And please read articles before you edit them.

How else did I edit them without reading them? GNUadeen (talk) 09:30, 10 May 2022 (CEST)

I likely agree with your thoughts re Google et al, however it does not change the grammatical issue. re Licenses, my point isn't regarding (proprietary) freeware, it is regarding the choice of project developers to brand their software open source rather than free software, as the implications are different perhaps not in common understanding, but in ethos. Of course the OSI and FSF have similar goals but different values, OSI favouring practicality vs FSF's more far-reaching societal ideas (communism). Your point of "you can look at the source code" fits source-available, rather than open source. Furthermore it is harmful, in my opinion, to brand all open source software as free software without regard to their similar, but different, meanings, and the aforementioned connotations. Merely linking the license and saying "it says free" is not enough, as you say, the GPL uses the term free but in my view it is anything but.

Perhaps you read before editing, but poorly and your edits have introduced errors. Specifically I am referring to you modifying a .onion link which was flagged as such ([here]) to point to the tor project site without regard to the purpose of that section and even without removing the "(Tor Link)" note. --sneak (talk) 01:41, 11 May 2022 (CEST)