User talk:Codegen86

Watcom is not free software
Hi there! You recently reverted my edit of Watcom C/C++ compiler including its removal from a free software category. However, it's released under the Sybase Open Watcom Public License which is not a FSF approved license. The category I removed it from (Category:Free compilers and interpreters) clearly states since many years that it lists free software projects. Can we agree Watcom doesn't belong to that category? Palosirkka (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Why not edit the article to say what you just did, i.e. the license is not approved by FSF (even though it is approved by OSI)? You made it sound like Open Watcom is not open source (false) or not usable commercially (false). Yes, some people have an issue with the license because they feel it gives too much power to Sybase (esp. the patent clause). But that's not the same thing. The reality is that Open Watcom has been used for various project including commercial ones for 10+ years and there was never any objection from Sybase (nor should there be as long as the license is followed). How Wikipedia classifies "free software" is a somewhat separate issue. Perhaps there is a need for a "software that is freely available and usable by anyone but not approved as free by FSF" category? :) Codegen86 (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll edit the article to include the differing view points on the license. I'm mostly interested in the categorisation. If you look at the license it's rather approved by none other than OSI. If you object to me removing it from that category, please clearly say so. Palosirkka (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * At the end of the day, what matters is what the license really allows or doesn't allow users to do. What OSI or FSF say about it is secondary. Anyway, I don't object to the recategorization, especially if it's made clear that "Wikipedia's classification follows XYZ...". I do object to the changed text. BTW this discussion should really be on the article's talk page. Codegen86 (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * While I agree that in the end the actual license is more important than opinions about it, Wikipedia requires that we use sources. And as the text of the license if fairly complex, these opinions are often useful, even when they differ. I was wrong in my edit in the 2 ways you mention, I won't be adding those. Thank you for this level headed chat. Palosirkka (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)