I don't know why but it pissed me off so much that they called gimp "freeware" : opensource

[–] beyond@linkage.ds8.zone 14 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Freeware

Please don't use the term “freeware” as a synonym for “free software.” The term “freeware” was used often in the 1980s for programs released only as executables, with source code not available. Today it has no particular agreed-on definition.

There is a misunderstanding that the free in free software or FOSS refers to price (and is hence a synonym of freeware). https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.html

Others use the term “FOSS,” which stands for “Free and Open Source Software.” This is meant to mean the same thing as “FLOSS,” but it is less clear, since it fails to explain that “free” refers to freedom.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 6 points 8 hours ago

As an ‘80s kid, I got freeware that was free from services that also offered try-and-buy software. Specifically labeled as freeware. As usual, there may be a definition that was agreed upon in the circles the author moved in, but on the consumer/DOS side there absolutely was “freeware” = free of charge.

[–] 0ops@lemm.ee 5 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

It can be both, FOSS is just more precise. And just like that, I've used up all of my semantic pedanticism for the day

[–] kixik@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 hours ago

Actually, FLOSS is more precise, given the "L" coming from "libre" in castilian (spanish now a days) referring explicitly to freedom. But it so happen open source != free/libre software, therefore open source usually disregard the philosophic aspect of freedom, which might turn against the users interest, which is what GNU guys were trying to prevent all along, because focusing in the practical aspects, without any concern on the principals behind, actually do have implications on the software itself and its usage.

[–] Zerush@lemmy.ml 30 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

FOSS is always Freeware, but Freeware isn't always FOSS. Freeware don't mean other thing that the soft is free to use, nothing more.

[–] beyond@linkage.ds8.zone 7 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

FOSS is always Freeware

"Free software" refers to freedom, not price. It's possible for free-as-in-freedom software to be sold.

"Freeware" is always about price, not freedom.

[–] Zerush@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 hours ago

It's mainly the price nowadaysm eg, Google and M$ have the biggest FOSS catalogues out there, doft full with their tracking APIs, GitHub is owned by M$, even Facebook develope a lot of FOSS, same Amazon and other big corporations. Yes, feedom that everybody can use this products, same as also Freeware, proprietary or not. Freedom has nothing to do with this. The only freedom a normal user have is that he can fork FOSS, but only if he have the needed skills, if not, he have to trust the author and his intentions. Are you capable to audit a big complex soft and to fork and maintan it to your like? In this case, congrats.

We currently see the trust of FOSS in Firefox from Mozilla, turning in an advertising company, we see it in Brave sharing data with fishy crypto companies. FOSS distributed with dozends of different licenses, more o less restrictives and even copyrights. The current definition of FOSS is turning in pretty debatable and certainly has to do very few with Freedom nor romanticism.

Competition and market are the ones that put the rules, everything else is heavenly music. only valid for some indie apps from particular devs.

[–] Reddfugee42@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Can someone translate this into English for me

[–] justme@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

FOSS is free and open source software, which is free to use and it's source code is disclosed and allowed to used to variable extend, often (definitely not always) owned by private people or non profit organizations. "Just" freeware is usually used for proprietory software, which is free to use, but undisclosed source, so nobody can look under the hood and see what it actually does.

[–] beyond@linkage.ds8.zone 3 points 8 hours ago

"Free" in free software refers to freedoms, not price.

"Free" in "freeware" refers to price, not freedom.

The two are not at all synonymous although typically most free software is also freeware.

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 2 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

There's some non-freeware FOSS projects, especially in pursuit of some support. While the better ones either have an easy to use build system and/or just negwares if you download their "trial" version, projects like Ardour is a lot more involved. It has actual noise injected into the sound output, it has a convoluted build system (for which they don't provide build manuals - after forking, you'll find out it will also need a specific version of VS to build), and on top of that, an expensive subscription model.

[–] Zerush@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 hours ago

Non freeware FOSS don't exist, FOSS - Free Open Source Soft, is always free, but there are non freeware OpenSource apps, like eg. Proton VPN, which is OpenSource but not Freeware, only Freemium (server cost money), or also Filen, it's also only Freemium OpenSource, if you need more than 10GB storage, you have to pay for it. There are also paid OpenSource apps without free version.

[–] AllHailTheSheep@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 hours ago

I use ardour all the time. the 1$ a month is well worth it imo

[+] easily3667@lemmus.org 6 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] secret300@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 10 hours ago

Ahahaha facts. Still annoys me but you right

[–] stray@pawb.social 22 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

I think y'all who are upset over the use of "freeware" are out of touch with how language is used in non-expert settings. Like, I'm definitely more tech-savvy than most people and I still didn't know about "FOSS" as a term until seeing it on Lemmy and looking it up. This just means "free software" to me and doesn't imply anything negative.

It even says, "the premier free and open source image editing software for multiple platforms" right in the first paragraph, so what's the issue? Do you think the headline will mislead someone into thinking that GIMP is proprietary?

[–] Hadriscus@lemm.ee 2 points 10 hours ago

I don't think the issue is that it implies something negative, it's that it does a poor job of conveying the nature of open-source, ie free as in free speech, not free as in free beer.

[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.ml -2 points 11 hours ago

It reminds me of how inside people tried to claw back the meaning of the word "hacker" from general use as a negative. Sorry but that ship sailed a long time ago.

[–] gezero@lemmy.bowyerhub.uk 13 points 20 hours ago

If you got scared like me, you can calm down.

Still GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE https://github.com/GNOME/gimp/blob/master/LICENSE

[–] lka1988@sh.itjust.works 36 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Freeware = Free software

Technically true.

[–] bizdelnick@lemmy.ml 2 points 14 hours ago

Nope. Free beer ≠ free speech.

[–] secret300@lemmy.sdf.org 19 points 1 day ago (7 children)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeware

[–] peregus@lemmy.world 3 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

I've read the first part and it's all "most often", "may be", so, technically, FOSS software is under the freeware umbrella.

[–] secret300@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Makes sense. In my mind when I think freeware tho I think discord, Spotify, free to use apps that have subscriptions and are proprietary. So I don't like that GIMP is labeled with those

[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 8 hours ago

It doesn't even have to be something with subscriptions. Hardware drivers are (usually) freeware too for example. AMD is an unusual exception to that being open source. Then you have IK Multimedia who include a license key for their drivers and charge $50 to transfer it, and won't even let the new owner of a product pay that if they bought it second-hand. Ask me how I know.

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] DemBoSain@midwest.social 17 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

Please explain. How is FOSS not also freeware?

[–] beyond@linkage.ds8.zone 2 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Different senses of "free." "Free software" refers to freedom, not price. "Freeware" refers to price, not freedom.

"Freeware" typically has the connotation of being proprietary but it doesn't have to be. Most people call actual free software "free software," "FOSS," or "open source." I think this is a side effect of proprietary being the assumed default.

There is a misunderstanding that "FOSS" means it is freeware and open source. You can see that misunderstanding even in this thread.

[–] secret300@lemmy.sdf.org 26 points 22 hours ago (3 children)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeware

Unlike with free and open-source software, which are also often distributed free of charge, the source code for freeware is typically not made available.

[–] peregus@lemmy.world 20 points 18 hours ago (5 children)

Unlike with free and open-source software, which are also often distributed free of charge, the source code for freeware is typically not made available.

It clearly says "typically", which includes the software that does open source the code.

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] folkrav@lemmy.ca 10 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Interesting. I interpreted this definition more like an oval vs. circle distinction. The vast majority of ovals aren’t circles, but circles are a subset of ovals.

[–] stray@pawb.social 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Making me realize Spongebob isn't even square.

[–] __Lost__@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

No, his pants are

[–] stray@pawb.social 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

They aren't though. They're rectangular at the top and then have cylinders coming out the bottom. I think the heels of his shoes might be square on the bottom.

[–] Hadriscus@lemm.ee 2 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

Spongebob Prismaticocylindricalpants doesn't have the same ring to it

[–] Flagstaff@programming.dev 10 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Interesting, didn't know that. Ironically, I've unintentionally followed this definition anyway because I think open-source is so incredible that I always describe FOSS as specifically FOSS, not "just" freeware.

In fact, I've pivoted so strongly to FOSS as of late that I haven't even said the word "freeware" in... years... dang...

[–] balder1993@programming.dev 2 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

I think we’re naturally a bit suspicious of freeware as “misleading” because so many old software used to be just vectors to install malware (mostly spam) alongside it. At least for me, I only trust it either if it is open source or it has a sustainable business model.

[–] Hadriscus@lemm.ee 2 points 10 hours ago

yea, "freeware" has that suspicious connotation to me as well. The mark of an era

[–] Cyclist@lemmy.world 5 points 23 hours ago

You pay for it by interfering in corporate profits and therefore innovation! Linux stole from Microsoft! And because they did we now have Windows 11.

I hope I don't need a slash s?

[–] lordnikon@lemmy.world 28 points 1 day ago (4 children)

I mean they call it out in the article that it's free and open source. Hey it might get someone looking for freeware to get gimp instead.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] 3h5Hne7t1K@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago

Absolutely correct, its an insult to everyone involved. Open source would do, or just call it free without the 'ware'

Open Source

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities