|
==Image source problem with Image:CRIM0012.jpg==
==old talk==
[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|32px|left|Image Copyright problem]]
There seems to be a similiar page called Free software. Those two should be merged.
Thanks for uploading '''[[:Image:CRIM0012.jpg]]'''. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the [[copyright]] status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{Tl|GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the [[GFDL]]. If you believe the media meets the criteria at [[Wikipedia:Fair use]], use a tag such as {{tlp|non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use]]. See [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags]] for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
''This page has enough detail that it should probably be renamed "Software Licenses." All subcategories should be given their own pages. The page for freeware should have less detailed descriptions of each type of non-freeware software. [[User:Aguydude|Aguydude]] 06:40 Nov 4, 2002 (UTC)''
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=upload&user=Silverus this link]. '''Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged''', as described on [[wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images.2FMedia|criteria for speedy deletion]]. If the image is copyrighted under a [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Fair use|non-free license]] (per [[Wikipedia:Fair use]]) then '''the image will be deleted [[WP:CSD#I7|48 hours]] after 20:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)'''. If you have any questions please ask them at the [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions|Media copyright questions page]]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-no source-notice -->
May I suggest adding the term "demo" under shareware/crippleware or as a separate category since that may be a more familiar term? - [[User:Brettz9|Brettz9]] 20:18 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)
==Image source problem with Image:CRIM0010.jpg==
[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|32px|left|Image Copyright problem]]
Thanks for uploading '''[[:Image:CRIM0010.jpg]]'''. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the [[copyright]] status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{Tl|GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the [[GFDL]]. If you believe the media meets the criteria at [[Wikipedia:Fair use]], use a tag such as {{tlp|non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use]]. See [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags]] for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
: I placed them in a "===-level" section, '''Related software types''', to distinguish them from actual freeware types. --[[User:AnOddName|AnOddName]] 03:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=upload&user=Silverus this link]. '''Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged''', as described on [[wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images.2FMedia|criteria for speedy deletion]]. If the image is copyrighted under a [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Fair use|non-free license]] (per [[Wikipedia:Fair use]]) then '''the image will be deleted [[WP:CSD#I7|48 hours]] after 20:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)'''. If you have any questions please ask them at the [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions|Media copyright questions page]]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-no source-notice -->
Also, how about starting pages to provide links by operating system to the various categories of freeware/shareware/etc. to either a Wikipedia site discussing the specific software or to the company/programmer? Although sites such as Versiontracker.com may already perform this function by designating items as freeware or shareware, I think it may be nice to subcategorize freeware further (e.g., some so-called "freeware" turns out to be really "crippleware") Having pages for specific software would also provide a forum for providing information on software not available at the company site or elsewhere. - [[User:Brettz9|Brettz9]] 20:18 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)
Is there a term for software (such as bribeware?) for software which was made freeware by someone paying the programmer to make it free for everyone? [[User:Brettz9|[[User:Brettz9|Brettz9]] [[User talk:Brettz9|(talk)]]]] 19:02, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
: Do you mean right now, or before you wrote that comment? ;) I've seen that before, and bribeware sounds fairly appropriate. [[User:Michaelpb|michaelb]] 16:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
== Is beerware necessary to include? ==
I don't think "Beerware" is necessary to include as main class of freeware, as it, at least to me, seems too obscure. Although I've run into all of the other sorts of freeware, I've never seen Beerware, and, quite honestly, it seems to me somewhat absurd and unnecessary to include as a main type of freeware. [[User:Michaelpb|michaelb]] 16:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
: Beerware is silly. How often is it that you're even in the same TIME ZONE as the person who wrote the software you're using? ([[User:Cult Of Personality|Cult Of Personality]] 18:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)).
== Splitting of the Free Software article into [[Free software]] and [[Freeware]] ==
I split [[Free software]] into two parts, [[Free software]] and [[Freeware]] and put any leftovers [[Talk:Free software/old article|here]], they should be merged into either one. --[[User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason| ]] [[User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason/|Ævar]] [[User talk:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason/|Arnfjörð]] [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User talk:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason|action=edit§ion=new}} Bjarmason] [[User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason/| ]] 15:12, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
==Should we have a Freeware Archives section?==
It seems like the Freeware Archives section is just a perfect source of people putting their fav freeware site on there. [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_web_directory]], eh? [[User:JesseW|JesseW]] 09:31, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:I agree, and have now deleted these links. [[User:Fredrik|Fredrik]] | [[User talk:Fredrik|talk]] 16:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== Definition of Freeware? ==
In my experience, in common usage today among the masses (and, as I understand it, as it was used on BBS networks of old) freeware tends to only refer to [[freely redistributable software]] (that is also gratis) as opposed to any software that is free of charge. (Indeed it is questionable whether gratis software can be a category of ''software'' at all as not only is its price not part of the nature of the software, but because `software', by definition, refers to the intangible idea itself which is usually avaiable in multiple physical forms at different prices.)
Although, I ''am'' also aware that people have probably tried to use the word freeware to mean just about everything (from [[free software]] to any software that is in the (non-copyright) public ___domain); maybe its ambiguity should be made clear on the page.
-- [[User:Joeblakesley|Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley]] 18:05, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
You lost me there, guy. What's all this about free software not being software? And even more confusing, what does the medium software is/can be delivered on and the price have to do with the definition of software - a set of instructions that performs a meaningful or useful tastk? ([[User:Cult Of Personality|Cult Of Personality]] 18:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)).
== Removal of disambiguation notice ==
At the top of this article, there was the following disambiguation notice:
::''This article refers to software available free of charge. For "free software" as defined by the [[Free Software Foundation]], see [[Free software]].''
I removed it. I think few people will be looking for free as in speech
software here, and someone who is needs only look down to the list of
categories of software distinct from freeware.
- [[User:Jrn|Jrn]] 07:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:Well, I removed it again. I'm going to try to make the distinction clean in the text of the article. [[User:Ed Poor|-- Uncle Ed]] [[user talk:Ed Poor|(talk)]] 18:41, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Now, the disambiguation links are for [[proprietary software]] and [[open-source software]]. There's even less ambiguity with those terms, then there is [[free software]]. --[[User:69.54.29.23|69.54.29.23]] 13:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
== Redistribution ==
I note the phrase "usually carries a license that permits redistribution". I wonder if this requires more qualification, even if it is true for a majority, as people may assume that it is always OK to redistribute software simply because it was free.
A classic example is [[Adobe Reader]], where the standard license does not allow redistribution. Adobe offer a redistribution license, with strings - e.g. the licensee must cease distributing old versions when new ones become available. Such restrictions also provide the copyright holder with the ability to change their mind, start to charge, and not see continued (legal) distribution of the free stuff.
Is it useful to quote or consider an analogy with books: I'm not allowed to photocopy a book and give the photocopies away. This is true even if the publisher made a free gift, to me, of the book? Just a thought, it might help to clarify the difference between public ___domain and free software, which I think confuses many. [[User:Notinasnaid|Notinasnaid]] 10:44, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
: This brings up another question: what, exactly, is redistrobution? No, I'm not saying this to be fecitious.
: I work in a company with about 80 employees. The IT department has a folder on the network with all the install files for all the software, so if an idiot breaks his computer, they can reinstall everything without digging the CDs out of a vault, or re-downloading things. Is this redistrobution? They're making the software available to a person other than the IT installer guy. But only on the company's computers. The software never leaves our network. ([[User:Cult Of Personality|Cult Of Personality]] 18:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)).
==superset of "free software"==
:There are other forms of distribution that allow a user to receive the software at no cost, but are generally not considered freeware.
This is an opinion, not a fact. And it does'nt even say whose opinion it is. Let's ask RMS if he considers [[free software]] to be a distinct class from [[freeware]]. I just was reading the free software definition at fsf.org and it looks like Stallman's idea of "free software" is a subset of "freeware":
*it's given away at no cost
*it comes with a license that stops you from doing certain things
Okay, all it really stops you from doing is claim that you wrote it yourself. And you can't mix it in certain ways with proprietary software.
And since I'm not an expert, here's a question? Can you "wrap" a free software product in a non-free wrapper? Like make a GUI interface to a command-line-only program? I think the answer is no - not without special permission. I'll ask again at [[talk:free software]]. [[User:Ed Poor|-- Uncle Ed]] [[user talk:Ed Poor|(talk)]] 18:40, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
: If you're writing a GUI program that launches the command-line program as a separate process, and you're distributing the command-line program (which I'll call CLP) legitimately under its licence terms (if at all), then there's nothing to stop you. The only difficulty I can see is that if the CLP has a licence term to the effect that you may not include it in a commercial software distribution, then you can commercially distribute the wrapper as long as you require the CLP to be obtained separately.
: OTOH if your GUI program has code from the CLP compiled into it, then your program is a derivative work. So it depends on what the licence of the CLP says about derivative works. -- [[User:Smjg|Smjg]] 15:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
:: This is in fact very common. For an example, think of PowerPoint Viewer ( free ) verses PowerPoint ( expensive ). You could call the viewer program a "wrapper" in this sense, because it steps "on top of" output from the full version and makes the binary files useable.
:: If that example isn't clear, think of all the software products that use [[SQL Server Express]] or [[Oracle Express]]. ([[User:Cult Of Personality|Cult Of Personality]] 18:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)).
The FSF has a nice graphic that shows "free download" software is a ''mixed'' superset of free and proprietary software. See [[:Image:Gpl and open-source.jpg]]. --[[User:69.54.29.23|69.54.29.23]] 21:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
== This article was seemingly written by Free Software advocates ==
Considering the amount of this article that discusses contrasts between freeware and free software, it seems pretty clear that this article was written by free software advocates who are interested in suggesting that free software is better than freeware. Since I'm a free software advocate myself and actually believe this, it doesn't bother me too much, nor do I think that the text in the article rises to the level of POV.
However, it would probably be a better article from the point of view of computer history if it discussed the role and history of freeware in computing, in addition to trying to distinguish freeware accurately from other kinds of software. Much of this article is currently dedicated to a careful statement of what freeware is '''not'''. [[User:Schoen|Schoen]] 05:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree totally with your remark here. When talking about freeware among common people it simply means gratis, and its opposite is payware.
Those are the two big categories for the general public.
Freeware is everything you can get for free over internet,
and which is not too much crippled by adware, spyware, nags,
registration, etc..
Linux is a totally free operating system, free as in gratis.
Few people know anything about open source, GPL and GNU
etc..
The editors in wikipedia who write about software are
not talking to the general public and do not use common language.
They are very often people who are fascinated by this debate
over open source, Stallman, GNU, etc, which the initiated knows as
a nearly religious war between different views.
And a quite useless war, because more and more programs are
becoming freeware, and more and more open source.
Typical for young thinkers, to find a train that's moving ahead,
standing on the front of it they wave flags and banners and
feel that they have created something. Beating each other
over the head with their flag poles, to let some of the hot air out.
But they are also confusing the general public with lots of strange
words and this eternal definition which involves free beer, somehow..
It makes it more difficult to write informative pages about software
without being interrupted by these open source prophets
who want their special vocabulary to rule.
[[User:Roger4911|Roger4911]] 21:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
JohnX:
Is this article about freeware or an article dedicated to the promotion of Free Software as defined by the FSF? Just wondering... JohnX
Roger4911:
Yes, one might wonder.
I think the page should at least start off from concepts the international readers can understand.
I should start with something like this:
Freeware.
To most people there are two main categories of software, freeware and payware.
But there are many different types of freeware.
The most important categories of freeware are open-source freeware and proprietary freeware. Proprietary means that somebody owns the copyright, owns the software.
Open source means that the source code is available to the public, and anybody who knows how to write programs can change it as he likes.
There are usually restrictions for how you can handle open-source software. One common rule is that you cannot take free open-source software and sell it, or change it and sell it. The author(s) of the program is/are giving the program away for free, so they do not want anybody to sell it later.
You may change it as you like and give it away, but not sell it.
Another big category is free open-source software which you are allowed to change and sell. This is how many commercial variants of Linux have been created.
[[User:Roger4911|Roger4911]] 21:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
:I think that introduction is generally good, but it makes some mis-statements.
*Proprietary does not mean that "somebody owns the copyright, owns the software". This is true of all software(with the possible exception of software in the public ___domain). A better sentence might be "Proprietary means that a single person(or company) controls the software, and only they can change it or distribute it."
*Very few, if any, free software or open-source licenses prevent anyone from selling the software. The third paragraph is simply incorrect. A better paragraph might be "The most common restriction present in nearly all open-source and free software licenses are a requirement that the text of the license be included in any copies that are distributed. The authors of the program are giving the program away for free, so they want everyone who gets a copy to know of their work, and that they gave it away to the community. The most commonly used open-source/free software license also requires that if you make a program using the software as part of it, you have to provide source code with every copy you distribute. You can always change it as you like and give or sell as many copies of it to anyone you want."
I'd be happy to provide references and details on any of the claims made above, if requested. Thanks for all your work on the 'pedia! [[User:JesseW/sig|JesseW, the juggling janitor]] 23:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
It's a shame this discussion page is as disorganised as the page whose disorganisation it seeks to criticise. Now, Freeware is different from Free Software. It is not true that one is a subcategory of the other. They are different. Free software in my concept of the English language is not Freeware. Freeware is closed source. As far as I'm aware, that is the context in which the phrase was coined. I can remember lots of binaries, both freeware and shareware (another separate category to my mind), floating about in the 80s. No code was ever seen. Freeware existed almost in a different sphere from Free or Open Source Software. For instance, Data Becker, a German IT publishing house, had a large series of books that combined free- and shareware for DOS and Windows with their own documentation for it. They did not distribute Free software, and there was no code made available for the software they did distribute, although they did encourage donating to the authors. In this series of books, software was classified into three categories: shareware, freeware and public ___domain. Because these occurred in similar quantities in the series, I would advocate that it is a useful classification. As an aside, shareware was usually limited in its usefulness by either having features disabled, throwing up nagging messages at intervals, or ceasing to function after a set time. - [[User:Samsara|Samsara]] 22:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
The article seems pretty fair as it stands. Expansion of the history and significance of Freeware might be a nice thing, but is (IMHO) a distinct issue from Neutrality.
I think that it '''is''' actually useful to distinguish between Freeware and Free Software, since many old-timers (i.e. myself) do implicitly think of the two as distinct. Some who have not grown up with the two might be confused by the closeness of names.
[[User:Darkonc|Darkonc]] 21:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
As a big open source advocate I really think we did a great job with propaganda on this wikipedia entry. Well done guys!
==Definitions==
This [http://www.pricelessware.org/thelist/glossary.htm glossary] might be of use; the site concerned is allied to the alt.comp.freeware Usenet newsgroup. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] 15:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
==An example case: Freeware in chemistry software for Linux==
In response to
:"As the open source free software is taking over in the Linux world, those who speak about freeware nowadays are usually talking about free software in the Windows world."
I am the maintainer of [http://www.redbrick.dcu.ie/~noel/linux4chemistry/Linux4Chemistry Linux4Chemistry], which aims to be a comprehensive list of all chemistry software available for Linux. Software is divided into Open Source (having an OSI-approved license, or Public Domain), Freeware (not Open Source but available at no cost to anyone), Free for academics (not Freeware or Open Source), Shareware and Commercial (everyone has to pay).
Despite the claim that open source free software is taking over in the linux world, there are 82 Open Source programs, and about 160 Freeware (some of which may be reclassified as Free for academics, once I get around to it). Note that many of the Freeware programs provide the source; it's just that their licences are not Open Source.
In summary, most of the no cost software in chemistry that runs on Linux is Freeware, and not Open Source. [[User:Baoilleach|Baoilleach]] 12:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)baoilleach
:That is a good point. I would support you rephrasing this to a more encyclopedic phrasing, and changing the statement you mentioned to more accurately reflect this. Thanks for bringing this to our(i.e. anyone who reads this talk page) attention! [[User:JesseW/sig|JesseW, the juggling janitor]] 07:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
==Rewrite comments==
I've tried to rewrite some of this in a more neutral tone. Some of it is still a little untidy, but I can't see anything that's obviously too pov. Is there any part that anyone thinks still needs npov work? (One person can't really decide a npov, obvously enough :) [[User:MartinRe|MartinRe]] 17:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
== Does anyone really use the term "Freeware" to refer to GPL sofware? ==
I would argue that the answer is definitely no, except for people who really don't know anything about software licensing.
Certainly, I would imagine that people who have invested thousands of hours of work on GPL software, or billions of dollars of salary (such as IBM), would object to calling the result "freeware."
One could do some googling to research this question, but I suppose the results would be "original research." Some authoritative references are needed. Would [[Groklaw]] http://www.groklaw.net/ be considered adequate?
[[User:Archimerged|Archimerged]] 22:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
:Freeware makes no reference to licencing, just cost. You also have to differinate between use of the term, and accuracy of the term. A term can be accurate, yet rarely used. If the accepted definition of freeware is "at no cost", and if the product in question is available at no cost, then I believe it is perfectly correct to call it freeware, objections notwithstanding[http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#freeware]. Because "no cost" is not a requirement of the GPL[http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html], I think it's simplier to break it down to two, independent questions:
#Is the product available at no cost? - If Yes, it's freeware, otherwise it's not.
#Does the product licence grant certain permissions? If Yes, it's free software, otherwise it's not.
:The fact that the two questions are distinct is what I was trying to put into words in the "not mutually exclusive". However, I was also trying to show that although freeware only means "no cost", common usuage has the implication of "no cost + nonfree licence", as a product with "no cost + free licence" is described with the emphasis solely on the free licence part. [[User:MartinRe|MartinRe]] 18:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I have to say that the article as it stands makes my brain hurt a bit with all the gymnastics around various definitions of free. IMO, it's way more comblicated than it has to be. As suggested above "freeware" isn't really a term one sees used in the context of FOSS. This from the FSF: "The term "freeware" has no clear accepted definition, but it is commonly used for packages which permit redistribution but not modification (and their source code is not available)." IMO, that hits the nail pretty much right on the head with a minimum of words.
[[User:Basinrange|Basinrange]] 20:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
:: You could change the article to refelect that, no problem [[User:Sega381|Sega381]] 00:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
== "Payware"? ==
This is off-topic, but what is the term for software that's not free and not available for free trial? [[User:Gracefool|··gracefool]] |[[User talk:gracefool|☺]] 23:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
:not free as in ...? :)
:If it's not free as in beer (payware?) not free software (proprietary?), and not available for trial, that sounds just like normal software. In any case, it's impossible to stick one label on software, as the critera for each are often independent. I'm sure you can have free software which is payware, and also proprietary software which is freeware, but trying to apply all possible labels would get unwieldy. So, to answer the question, there is no "the term", all you can do is look at the software characteristics and see which term is relevant for that aspect. All IME, Regards, [[User:MartinRe|MartinRe]] 00:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
==Sourcecode==
I deleted: Freeware software released without sourcecode is [[proprietary software|proprietary]]. [[User:Sleigh|Sleigh]] 15:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
== External links ==
I removed this from the main page as they currently don't appear to follow the [[WP:EL|guideline.]] - [[User talk:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="000000">brenneman</font>]]<span class="plainlinks"> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman<font color="000000" title="Admin actions"><sup>'''{L}'''</sup> </font>]</span> 09:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
*[http://paulspicks.com/history.asp ''The History of Shareware'' by Michael E. Callahan]
*[http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#freeware GNU's declaration that "freeware" is not the same as "free software"]
*[http://www.techsoup.org/howto/articlepage.cfm?articleid=40 Making Sense of Freeware, Open Source, and Shareware]
*[http://textfiles.fisher.hu/news/freeware.txt ''Andrew Fluegleman: In Memoriam'' by Kevin Strehlo]
*[http://www.arachnoid.com/careware/index.html Paul Lutus: CareWare concept]
*[http://www.freewarehof.org/names.html "13 of the Great Freeware Writers" by Rey Barry, the Freeware Hall of Fame]
*[http://www.freeware-alternative.uni.cc/freeware_alternatives_download.html ''A Collection of well-known Freeware Alternatives to Commercial Software's'' by Deepesh Agarwal]
*[http://www.econsultant.com/i-want-freeware-utilities/index.html I want a Freeware Utility to ... 450+ common problems solved], eConsultant
Added a link to the freeware wiki site. http://freewarewiki.pbwiki.com/ Includes reviews, one of the more useful sites on the web. Though needs a layout makeover... [[User:Cyb.tachyon|Cyb.tachyon]] 15:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
== External links from Abandonware ==
There are several external links in the [[Abandonware]] article that may be better off in this page, such as Liberated Games (which is about once-propietary, now freeware games), and other. Should we move them over here?[[User:Sega381|Sega381]]
: They were moved to the [[List of commercial games released as freeware]].[[User:Sega381|Sega381]] 02:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
== Proprietary software released as freeware ==
What is the purpose of listing software that used to cost money and now doesn't? Are these packages notable freeware packages? They look like old software that is now freeware. The intro hints that they "were proprietary", but now they aren't. No, freeware software without the source code is still proprietary. --[[User:69.54.29.23|69.54.29.23]] 13:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
: Yes, they don't seem very useful or noteworthy. They are actually leftovers from a list that was split, so it probably would be ok to delete that section.[[User:Sega381|Sega381]] 19:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
== Motivations ==
I think the motivations I moved from the bottom of the article to the top are unsubstantiated and proably don't belong in the intro. However, they don't belong under any other of the headings, and we might as well lead with unsourced statements, rather than ignoring them and putting them at the end of the article, out of sight. I'm happy with the uncited sentences being deleted, but I'm willing to have somebody verify them. --[[User:69.54.29.23|69.54.29.23]] 21:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
== Adding External Link - Freeware Forum ==
Dear all,
I would like to add a link here to a great freeware forum called CWF that has a growing community of dedicated gamers and was set up for as collection of links to freeware games and the discussion of games, to discuss commercial games and other things. Here is the link:
http://forum.connect-webdesign.dk/index.php
I did not want to add it without approval here first.
Thanks,
Parvini
== Adding External Link - Great Freeware Website==
Dear all,
I would like to add a link here to a great freeware website called Freeware Links. Here is the link:
http://freeware-links.com/
I did not want to add it without approval here first.
Thanks,
M. E. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/196.205.240.140|196.205.240.140]] ([[User talk:196.205.240.140|talk]]) 04:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
== Adding external link - I want a Freeware Utility to... ==
http://www.econsultant.com/i-want-freeware-utilities/
This webpage has a good list and doesn't have any adverts that I can see. [[User:203.173.208.27|203.173.208.27]] 18:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
== Adding external link - Community of freeware programmers ==
Hi,
http://www.polishwords.com.pl
This is an international freeware programmers community. No adverticements, no
carges and so on. Please visit and point out your opinions if its worth
adding to this article as an external link.
greatings,
Tom Smykowski
POLAND <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/82.146.224.10|82.146.224.10]] ([[User talk:82.146.224.10|talk]]) 16:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
: In my view it doesn't seem to have enough material to be worth adding as a link. I vote to remove. [[User:Aarontay|Aarontay]] 12:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
: As for new this group consists of 10 programmers all over the world willing to create and develop freeware applications for no money, it's rather new project but fast groving, and think that it's the first one ever and unique. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/83.18.236.34|83.18.236.34]] ([[User talk:83.18.236.34|talk]]) 09:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
| 