• peregus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      9 hours ago

      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.

      • ganymede@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        when you feel up to reading the word after “typically” feel free to modify the attitude

        • peregus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          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.>

          • ganymede@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            16
            ·
            edit-2
            7 hours ago

            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

            • Dem Bosain@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              3 hours ago

              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.

    • folkrav@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      12 hours ago

      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.

    • Flagstaff@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      14 hours ago

      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…

      • Baldur Nil@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

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