I don't know why but it pissed me off so much that they called gimp "freeware"

www.tomshardware.com Freeware image editor GIMP 3.0 arrives after seven years of incubation

Naturally, there are some big changes since 2018's version 2.10.

Open Source @europe.pub

www.tomshardware.com /software/freeware-image-editor-gimp-3-0-arrives-after-seven-years-of-incubation

2 0

59 comments

Freeware = Free software
Technically true.
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeware
  
  I've read the first part and it's all "most often", "may be", so, technically, FOSS software is under the freeware umbrella.
  
  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.
- Nope. Free beer ≠ free speech.

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.
- 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.
  
  only in theory. in reality, only one person would ever buy it then re-release the source code for free-as-in-beer. unless you're talking about something other than GPL2/3.
  
  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
- 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.

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.

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 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?
- 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.
- 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.

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.
  
  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, 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...
  
  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.
- 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.

If you got scared like me, you can calm down.
Still GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE https://github.com/GNOME/gimp/blob/master/LICENSE

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.

Absolutely correct, its an insult to everyone involved. Open source would do, or just call it free without the 'ware'

pisses me off that they call it an image editor
- yea, when it really is a batch-pixel-value-changer !

59 comments