User Talk: Glenn

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{archives
|small=yes
|auto=long
|index=/Archive index
|age=14
|bot=MiszaBot III}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(14d)
| archive = User talk:Glenn/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 2
| maxarchivesize = 70K
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 3
}}

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=User talk:Glenn/Archive index
|mask=User talk:Glenn/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes

}}

ArbCom Elections 2016 ↗: Voting now open!

{{Ivmbox|Hello, Glenn. Voting in the '''2016 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements ↗ and submit your choices on '''the voting page ↗'''.
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

FOSS

Why are you taking FOSS software out of Category:Free and open-source software and putting it in Category:Free software? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MeshCore&diff=1360207420&oldid=1354197045 ↗ --Guy Macon (talk) 23:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
:Because MeshCore is released under the MIT License ↗ - and the MIT License is a permissive software license ↗ which again is a free-software license ↗ (and that again is a free and open-source software ↗ license). So I changed the category from :Category:Free and open-source software ↗ to the more specific :Category:Free software ↗. (free-software ↗ is also FOSS). --Glenn (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
::But "free software" can also include software that is not open-source, and is thus a broader, *less* specific category than "free and open-source software". You could have gone one step forward and moved it to just "software". Your claim that "free-software is also FOSS" is incorrect and reversed: FOSS is free software, but some free software is not FOSS. --Destynova (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Please read this and follow the references: Free and open-source software ↗ Quote: "...Free and open-source software (FOSS) is software available under a license that gives users the right to use, share, modify, and distribute the software – modified or not – to everyone and provides the means to exercise those rights using the software's source code. FOSS is an inclusive umbrella term encompassing free software and open-source software. [1]->[Sources describing free and open-source software as an umbrella term encompassing both free software and open source software: [4][5][6][7][8]]..." Glenn (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::{{ec}} Related:
:::*Wikipedia:Help desk#Categorizing Free and Open Source Software ↗
:::*This series of edits:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MeshCore&diff=1360207420&oldid=1354197045 ↗https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MeshCore&diff=1360213413&oldid=1360207420 ↗https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MeshCore&diff=1360217430&oldid=1360213413 ↗https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MeshCore&diff=1360608754&oldid=1360217430 ↗
:::*These edits, which should be addressed if we are going to address the edit to meshcore: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Free_Firefox_WebExtensions&diff=prev&oldid=1360202821 ↗https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MIT_License&diff=prev&oldid=1360204005 ↗https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_software&diff=prev&oldid=1360202237 ↗https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BSD_licenses&diff=prev&oldid=1360204524 ↗ ...and many more at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Glenn ↗
:::In my opinion, anything that is both Free software and open Source Software should be categorized as :Category:Free and open-source software ↗, not :Category:Free software ↗, :Category:Open-source software ↗, or categorized as both. My reason is that FOSS is a '''very''' widely used term. I would like to open a discussion about this, and if we cannot reach agreement, I intend to post an RfC to settle the dispute. Far better would be to work it out together. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::::If you do make a RfC - could you please ping me, so I know where it takes place? Glenn (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

:::The definition of free software is here (heading "Four essential freedoms of free software") ↗. Glenn (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::(FOSS) Approvals ↗ Quote: "...This table lists for each license what organizations from the FOSS community have approved it – be it as a "free software" or as an "open source" license – , how those organizations categorize it, and the license compatibility between them for a combined or mixed derivative work...". If a license is approved by FSF (Free Software Foundation) it sometimes has the "copyleft"-feature (not "free software" but is FOSS) - if not it is typically "free software" OSI approved "Permissive" or public domain or some other license (see this table ↗). Glenn (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::::{{ec}} Better link ↗. The GNU foundation does not have the authority to define Free Software, and the "FOSS Community" as a whole does not follow the narrow and self-serving definition that gnu.org uses. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::Please note that the GNU foundation has made licenses, that a lot of software are published under - e.g.: GNU Affero General Public License ↗, GNU General Public License ↗, GNU Lesser General Public License ↗ or GNU Free Documentation License ↗. So whatever that they follow or not "does not follow the narrow and self-serving definition that gnu.org uses" does not matter in Wikipedia. Glenn (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::You are of cause entitled to have you opinion. I just made an argument that a GNU foundation article (and other) is on Wikipedia whether you like it or not. Glenn (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::Hi Glenn. I see that you've been using Wikipedia for a long time.
::::::I therefore find it hard to understand why you would create a long series of vexatious edits, which are clearly to the rational mind, simply vandalism. They must all be reverted, and this creates work for other editors. I do not think this behavior would fly in front of arbitration, which is where it's going to end up.
::::::Or, you can revert your changes. I am not going to explain to you why removing "open source" from a dozen pages which had it ''on purpose'' is open-and-shut vandalism. You're an adult, you can figure that out for yourself. Please clean up the mess you've made. Thank you. ~2026-29512-73 ↗ (talk) 02:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::The rationale is that the licenses and software labelled Copyleft ↗ is not covered by the label free software ↗. But both the licenses and software labelled Copyleft ↗ and label free software ↗ are both covered by the label free and open-source software ↗. That was what I discovered via the articles and references and corrected the categories and articles accordingly. --Glenn (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::I think that characterizing a good-faith disagreement about categorization as vexatious and vandalism is going way too far. Glenn, Destynova, and I are simply disagreeing about what is best for the encyclopedia. And it looks like we are not going to agree, so we need to post an RfC to get the consensus of the community. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::My guess is that the RfC should be under Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology ↗. Should I try and create the RfC? --Glenn (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::Sure. One thing, though. While I 100% believe that we are both trying to do what is best, it is also a fact that this is the sort of thing that attracts a ... how do I say this ... a "certain kind of person". So my advice is to create an entire draft RfC here on your user page (just the text without the magic bits that make it a real RfC) and let everyone involved comment and refine it so that we don't end up with accusations of asking the wrong question, claims of a non-neutral RfC, someone adding a question 90% of the way in, etc. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::I have not forgotton you - I am just quite busy with other work - that uses my "deep" thinking. Glenn (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::Darn that pesky real life! Don't they know that I have to spent more time staring at a glowing rectangle and pressing square buttons with letters on them? --18:20, 29 June 2026 (UTC)