Talk:Open source game Wesnoth reaches version 1.0
There are several terms used in this article which are not 100% descriptive (such as free software / open source and GNU/Linux / Linux), but the meaning is generally implied and understood. In the interest of keeping the piece readable, I'd prefer to use a single term and keep the discussion of the relation between them relegated to the Wikipedia page, which other editors have helpfully linked to. The points made in these edits are valid, just perhaps not the best choice for this article. - Glitch010101 14:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the meaning of "open source" is not understood by those that see the words. "Free software" is also not usually understood at first sighting, but at least one of its two meanings is accurate. "Open source", a marketing term, is confusing - and the worst confusion is that people expect it to be description, so they think they understand it. This is not a marketing article, and "free software" is the scientifically accurate name, it precedes "open source" by 15 years, and it's the informationally-correct name. I suggest "free software (also called 'open source software')". (in you change summary, you said "this link doesn't go anywhere", but that was only true before I fixed my formatting mistake. see free software). 22.214.171.124 21:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you for bringing this to the discussion page and not letting it turn into an edit war on the article. I agree with a good deal of what you said and regret that the article was already published when I got to it and that I was in a bit of a rush myself earlier (darn lunch hour never lasts an hour). I'm still new to the Open Source vs Free (Libre) Software discussion, so please forgive my misconceptions. I chose "open source" there simply because Battle for Wesnoth has its source code available under the GPL. To me, "free software" (when you don't specify free as in beer or free as in speech) can be confusing to the average reader. Free software could also refer to freeware which does not have the source code available. I think the reason the term open source came into being was to help differentiate between free (beer) and free (speech).
- Sorry I missed your second edit there, fixing the Free_Software link - for some reason I could see your summary that said it's fixed, but I guess I'd opened my page for editing just before then. My apologies, thanks for the wikification and edits. I'd actually like to hear a little more about why you think free software is a more accurate term, as I'm still a bit muddy on the other side of the discussion - 126.96.36.199 05:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I didn't manage to check back here for a few days, so this is probably too late. The reason "open source" is not useful for clarifying is that it clarifies an incorrect meaing. "Free" has two meanings, one right, one wrong, "open" has only one meaning (so people think they understand it) but that meaning is wrong. The definitions for both "free software" (according to FSF) and "open source software" (by Open Source Initiative) require that people who receive a copy of the software get permission to use the software, to study the source code, to modify the software, to redistribute the software, and to redistribute their modifications to the software.
- So, the thing that sets FS/OSS apart from other software is that you are not restricted/prevented/prohibited from helping yourself or from cooperating with others. "Open" doesn't describe this unique characteristic. "Open" describes being about to look into the software, this is the reason that Microsoft has been able to call it's Governmental Security Program "open source". This program/project they run for governments allows governments to look at some Microsoft source code - but it doesn't give them freedom/permission to modify or redistribute or even to recompile the software for themselves (so they can't know that the source which as been opened to them is the same source that's running their government computers).
- I hope this helps, and I hope I wasn't too late. 188.8.131.52 13:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)