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.
Can someone translate this into English for me
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.
“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.
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.
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$, even Facebook develope a lot of FOSS, same Amazon and other big corporations. Yes, feedom that everybody can use this products, same as also Freeware, proprietary or not. Freedom has nothing to do with this. The only freedom a normal user have is that he can fork FOSS, but only if he have the needed skills, if not, he have to trust the author and his intentions. Are you capable to audit a big complex soft and to fork and maintan it to your like? In this case, congrats.
We currently see the trust of FOSS in Firefox from Mozilla, turning in an advertising company, we see it in Brave sharing data with fishy crypto companies. FOSS distributed with dozends of different licenses, more o less restrictives and even copyrights. The current definition of FOSS is turning in pretty debatable and certainly has to do very few with Freedom nor romanticism.
Competition and market are the ones that put the rules, everything else is heavenly music. only valid for some indie apps from particular devs.
There’s some non-freeware FOSS projects, especially in pursuit of some support. While the better ones either have an easy to use build system and/or just negwares if you download their “trial” version, projects like Ardour is a lot more involved. It has actual noise injected into the sound output, it has a convoluted build system (for which they don’t provide build manuals - after forking, you’ll find out it will also need a specific version of VS to build), and on top of that, an expensive subscription model.
Non freeware FOSS don’t exist, FOSS - Free Open Source Soft, is always free, but there are non freeware OpenSource apps, like eg. Proton VPN, which is OpenSource but not Freeware, only Freemium (server cost money), or also Filen, it’s also only Freemium OpenSource, if you need more than 10GB storage, you have to pay for it. There are also paid OpenSource apps without free version.
I use ardour all the time. the 1$ a month is well worth it imo
Removed by mod
Ahahaha facts. Still annoys me but you right
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.
Mayhaps or most like other tech “journalist” he prolly has no idea what the difference is
At this point i don’t think any tech article is written by a human
I think the same…
Honestly so true
If you got scared like me, you can calm down.
Still GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE https://github.com/GNOME/gimp/blob/master/LICENSE
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?
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.
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.
Absolutely correct, its an insult to everyone involved. Open source would do, or just call it free without the ‘ware’
Please explain. How is FOSS not also freeware?
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.
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…
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.
yea, “freeware” has that suspicious connotation to me as well. The mark of an era
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.
when you feel up to reading the word after “typically” feel free to modify the attitude
What kind of attitude?
the source code for freeware is typically not made available
Typically it different than never. It means that sometimes the source code is made available and is the case of FOSS.>
edit: it just occurred to me you may not be a native english speaker, in which case i apologise. “typically not” means it usually doesn’t happen.
For anyone who’s wondering (from the GIMP manual)
The GIMP is not freeware
GIMP er ikkje såkalla “freeware”
El GIMP no es freeware
GIMP non è freeware
GIMP n’est pas un freeware
Sorry, none of those are true.
-GIMP is freeware.
-It’s also open source.
-It’s also free to distribute.
-It’s free to modify.
-It’s even free to sell, as long as you include the source code.
cool, i didn’t realise some randos on lemmy who can’t even check their sources know more about the software than those who created it, my bad.
someone please let the GIMP team know how wrong they are when they wrote it in their own manual about their own software (page 4).
The GIMP is not freeware
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.
Making me realize Spongebob isn’t even square.
No, his pants are
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.
Spongebob Prismaticocylindricalpants doesn’t have the same ring to it
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?
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.
pisses me off that they call it an image editor
yea, when it really is a batch-pixel-value-changer !
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
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.
Freeware = Free software
Technically true.
Nope. Free beer ≠ free speech.
I’ve read the first part and it’s all “most often”, “may be”, so, technically, FOSS software is under the freeware umbrella.
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
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.
Yes, but the average person doesn’t give a shit about the technical definition. You know what is meant, don’t be pedantic about it.
I’d hope that Tom’s Hardware is written by someone more knowledgeable than “the average person”.
Otherwise it’s as good as dead.
I absolutely agree with you but lemmy is not for the average person (and apparently doesn’t want to be) :D
Define average person.
Go outside and talk to several random people. That’s the average person.
Lol. How to explain without explaining 101.
Being average does not mean that there is no room to explain stuff…
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.
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.
