[nzlug] Freeware & Shareware

[cr]

On Thursday 25 January 2007 09:04, Michael Adams wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 23:37:32 +1300
>
> cr wrote:
> > On Wednesday 24 January 2007 08:09, Michael Adams wrote:
> >
> > (contentious bits snipped in deference to the list!)
> >
> > > To date none of the software you have quoted is freeware or
> > > shareware. Adobe Readery
> >
> > Well, Adobe Readery seems to be offered as a free download all over
> > the net.
> >
> > > http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/pdfs/Reader_WWEULACombined20040915_
> > >1630 .pdf Irfan View (Scroll to USAGE AGREEMENT)
> > > http://www.irfanview.com/main_what_is_engl.htm
> >
> > Irfanview is free for private use.   $12.50 US to register for all
> > other use.
> >
> > > FireFox
> > > http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/legal/eula/firefox-en.html
> >
> > I thought Firefox was free, period.
> >
> > > Opera
> > > http://www.opera.com/license/owal/index.dml
> >
> > Free for private use, IIRC.
> >
> > I'd like to know what definition of 'freeware' or 'shareware' excludes
> > all the above.  Or, to put it another way, if the above are not
> > 'freeware' or 'shareware' - then what is?
>
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/categories.html#freeware
>
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/categories.html#FreeSoftware
>
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/categories.html#non-freeSoftware
>
> My point is that if it has a proprietary licence, it isn't free.
> Much "freeware" fits into this category. All listed above have
> non-free licenses. Even Firefox if you download the binary
> instead of rolling your own. Further FSF do not categorise GPL software
> as freeware. Non payment of money does not make software free. Freeware
> is a term loosely used by people that want software at no cost. The
> sting in the tail of much of the software that qualifies gives the rest
> a bad reputation.

I'm aware of the looseness of the term 'freeware'.   So far as I can tell, our 
IT manager classes anything not bought from a large software house as 
'freeware' - and that includes e.g. Firefox.

Hence my indignation at his statement that 'responsible corporate citizens' 
don't touch 'freeware' - which taken literally is a slur against open source 
software in general.

It's occurred to me since that he *may* have meant 'responsible corporate 
citizens don't use freeware  *that is free for private use only*'   (but he 
didn't say that).

> What you should be doing is building an argument against the term
> freeware in the document, instead using finer grained terms like "Open
> Source" and proprietary instead. Show how broad the freeware brush is.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeware#Comparison_with_other_terms
>
> Adobe reader is an example you have found. How about WinZip, is this
> used on your work computers. It was actually shareware. But the new
> licenses are causing current users grief (google it). What alternative
> is proposed to these "necessary" software apps that fall under this
> sweeping umbrella.

Well, there are a number of genuinely 'free' Windows Zip applications, as it 
happens (or were when I looked a while back).    I can't recall if Winzip is 
still installed on all PCs or not.

> A clever person with a concise non confrontational style could
> possibly pull the memo to pieces because the terms are so sweeping. If
> you are up to it, and you want help, ask on the NZOSS OpenChat forum.

Well, I used it as an illustration of misguided attitudes.    Since it's not a 
statement of corporate policy, there's not much point in rewriting it.   What 
has been stated as policy is "if any freeware is in use a commercial 
alternative will be found".    Whether the IT manager can be persuaded to 
rethink is more relevant (but I personally doubt it).

But that only irks me (as a home Linux user) on a theoretical level, so to 
speak.    What constantly annoys me in practical terms (and most other users 
in the organisation) is that the limited range of software we've now been 
provided with doesn't do what we used to be able to do (as per my Irfanview 
example).

cr