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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Please explain. How is FOSS not also freeware?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeware
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?
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)
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.
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
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
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?