A Wikipedia editor recently changed the NASA World Wind page, removing all references to it being ‘free’, so what exactly is ‘free’ in Open Source land?
Here is a section from the Talk page –
In the Competition section, the article makes this claim: NASA World Wind will always be free and open. What is the basis for that claim. How is it not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL? – Walkiped (T | C) 22:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC) I had already removed that. However, Gurch added it back in a confusing and ill-summarized edit, which actually reverted his own previous edit. I’ve reverted his second edit, except that I think we can keep Geody. Superm401 – Talk 23:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Never mind. It’s a redlink, so I’m leaving it out for now. Superm401 – Talk 23:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I’ve restored the article about Geody. –Eltener 00:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks! – Walkiped (T | C) 01:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
“will always be free […]” ok, nobody knows that, but why did you remove every other free from the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC).
I have a source that says NOSA is not a free license and there is no opposing source (that I know of). Superm401 – Talk 23:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
this is FSF’s statement and they don’t have any trademark on ‘free software’ (or even “Free Software”) term ;) But i asked about other ‘free’ you deleted (“WW2D is cross-platform, free…” and “add-ons and plugins for World Wind are freely…”) ww2d and add-ons don’t use NOSA (most of the add-ons are PD or CC)
Does the FSF have a claim on the phrase “free and open”? We dont claim to comply with GPL’s definition of free, NOSA is very obviously an OSI license and was approved by them, there are no misrepresentations of that fact. It is ‘free’ as in no cost for the source and open in that you can modify it for your uses. Adamhill 10 January 2007
This could turn into an interesting discussion, I don’t think claiming a ‘source’ is really good editing practice, I could claim I had a source that said Google was buying NASA, oh wait…..