Talk:Free software license

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Free software license article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 copyleft 2 Article title "license" or "licenses"? 3 the license list needs help 4 Duplicates "List of software licenses" 5 "Abandonware" Licenses 6 Major-ish improvements to the page 7 Re: Unacceptable restrictions

[edit] copyleft

a "copyleft" license is not a concept made up by ESR or the open source community. Infact, quite the opposite. The name is however an obvious one coined by a particular stoner hippy with the initials "ESR". For this matter, they have no right to claim credit for inventing the concept. newspapers have done that for centuries. they buy articles from other papers and circulate them with the attached copyright. but anyways, I find it absolutely annoying that people say a term is accepted in the community simply by its use. People quote other people all the time but that does not mean they accept the term. And just because someone already has fame doesn't make everything they do or say famous automatically.

Very unencyclopedic. Fsdfs 09:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article title "license" or "licenses"?

It seems that this article should be about "licenses". I'm not sure what exactly the content should be when the word is singular. Any objections if I move it? (the old name will become a redirect, nothing will be lost or become broken, it just clarifies the article's subject.) Gronky 17:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

After thinking about this for a while, using "license" in the singular is simply bad grammar, so I'll just move it. Gronky 01:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

In your move message, you say: "singular without a preceding article is just ungrammatical". Can you explain what you mean? The rest of Wikipedia uses singular titles without preceding (grammatical) articles; what makes this article any different? --Piet Delport 07:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Consider a musical group - a band called "Bandy". An article about the band would be called "Bandy", but an article about the members could be called "Bandy members", not "Bandy member". This article is about the licences, not the concept. Description of the concept is in free software. No? Gronky 11:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, to me, free software licence is a separate concept to free software: one is a kind of legal agreement, the other a kind of computer software. :)

To use the "member" analogy, i think the situation is more similar to cast member, aircrew member, ranking member, Member of Parliament, and so on. Unlike the hypothetical "Bandy members" example, and like this article, they describe a general concept which stands on its own as a singular, as opposed to an arbitrary finite collection of things which are only notable when considered together.

The relevant Wikipedia guideline, by the way, is here: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals). Would you care to review it, and share your thoughts?

--Piet Delport 22:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. It seemed so clear to me at the time, but now I don't feel so decisive. I've no objection if you(s) want to rename it. Gronky 08:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I would lean towards calling it "Free software license" and starting the article off with a sentence along the lines of "A free software license is..." Alternatively, perhaps make it "List of free software licenses" and reformat it slightly to fit in with the other lists. We have Automobile rather than "An automobile" or "Automobiles", so I don't really see why the same shouldn't apply here. NicM 07:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC).

Hmm, I do see Gronky's argument, however: an article about Ford's automobiles would probably be called Ford automobiles not Ford automobile. I think either would work here, a free software license is both a singular entity and a member of a collection of free software licenses, neither are ungrammatical. It depends on which one the article discusses, which isn't really clear: the article covers both the definition of a single free software license and also some discussion of them as a group. NicM 07:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC).

I think that what matters is what type of group the thing in question is:

• Ford automobiles would be plural because it's pretty much an arbitrary, fixed, finite collection of specific cars, which don't necessarily have anything in common (aside from their brand). It's only the group itself that is notable, and not anything about the individual cars.
• Off-road vehicle, on the other hand, is singular, because it discusses a certain kind or class of car. What's notable are the features and capabilities that define an off-road car, and not anything about the collective group, itself.

Further examples:

• Plural: Deryni novels, Buffy novels, Stargate film novels. Singular: Romance novel, Graphic novel, Gothic novel
• Plural: Canadian parliamentary cats, Russian space dogs. Singular: Feral cat, Domestic shorthaired cat, German Shepherd Dog, Livestock guardian dog

--Piet Delport 13:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I agree, move it back to Free software license. I think the lead-in may need a little work to better reflect that title. NicM 13:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC).

[edit] the license list needs help

I've added all 62 licenses from the FSF license list page. Unfortunately, FSF's page doesn't always use the exact license name, sometimes they use a descriptive reference such as "License of Whatever". If anyone can fix some license names, that would be great. Gronky 02:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicates "List of software licenses"

This article duplicates material at list of software licenses. The material on that article should be merged to this article, no? --71.241.128.118 16:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Abandonware" Licenses

im suprised that no one has metnioned in this article the "abandonware" licanse (otherwise known as the "DWTFYWWI license")

Can you provide a link to the licence text? There are probably many "abandonware" licences which are non-free purely because the copyright holder has not thought the licence through properly. Gronky 11:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major-ish improvements to the page

I've added a new section on "Challenges for licences". I don't like that name, but I can't think of a better one right now. The idea is to explain what's evolving in the free software licence world, what problems are appearing, etc.

I've also gotten rid of the list of FSF approved licences. It was boring, and half the links were red, and it was a list, so I moved it to List of FSF approved software licences.

The general direction is that I'm trying to move the article in the direction of having less filler and more content. Comments sought. Gronky 22:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Unacceptable restrictions

Not everyone regardes SLUC or HESSLA as "non-free", as they not only protect the developers, but also the users or ... targets of their software from having their freedom impaired. While these licences may have no observable legal impact in certain jurisdiction (like, the People's Liberation Army), they nontheless make a strong statement against free software supporting military, spyware and similar morally ambigious uses. The FSF is not the only authority to decide what freedom constitutes, even if they like to see themselves as such. --MushroomCloud 16:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Who, other than their authors and friends, regards those licences as free software licences? FSF is the primary authority, and the next closest authorities (Debian, OSI, and the *BSD folk) agree with FSF on this. These licences have not managed to spread in any notable way outside of their group of origin. Whether they make a strong statement against supporting one group of people over another group of people is irrelevent to whether they are free software licences. Gronky 16:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, give them some time. SLUC is at most 2 month old, and HESSLA doesn't seem to have more than a year. And regarding the statement they make: it is probably one of the most freedom-embracing ever made. After all, it is rather intended so no one can say "you made a program which you allowed to be used to slaughter peaceful protesters" – as with the GPL. I find this a bit disturbing.

Anyway, I do agree with the current phrasing of the paragraph. --MushroomCloud 20:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)