Talk:Mullvad

Notability?

@Djm-leighpark: It has a single reliable review: . So, borderline. One more reliable review and it would pass WP:NSOFT. As it is... well, I said, borderline. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

No longer free

The lede describes Mullvad as "free open-source software", but Mullvad is no longer free; it charges users €5 per month for the service. I don't want to just go in and change the wording, as I'm not sufficiently familiar with the terminology to know if there's another descriptor that would be more accurate. Bricology (talk) 09:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bricology, the word free in free and open-source software refers to free software rather than freeware. It's free as in freedom, but not free of charge. To help eliminate confusion, I've added a sentence to the lead section clarifying that the subscription is paid. — Newslinger talk 10:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The distinction being made between "free software" and "freeware" is, at best, specious. "Freeware" is, after all, nothing but a portmanteau of "free" and "software", so there is no meaningful difference between "free software" and "freeware". And clarifying it by linking it with "gratis" and "libre" is meaningless to English-speakers, since neither of those are English words. "Free software" and "freeware" both mean "software for which no money is charged". If "open source" is meant, then that term should be used. It appears that the entire confusion over this is one being promoted by Richard Stallman, but instead of clarifying sentences in which the term is used, it only confuses things. The fact that there are two different articles which ostensibly try to explain the distinctions (Free software and Gratis versus libre) demonstrates that the entire effort to shoehorn a new and novel meaning into an existing and commonly-used phrase, is folly. Bricology (talk) 09:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

That a piece of software is open-source doesn't necessarily mean that it's free (as in freedom) as well. Also, it seems that both 'gratis' and 'libre' appear in English dictionaries. — Stempelquist (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The Free software article contradicts your argument. See File:Open-source-vs-freeware.svg for an illustration. Attempting to redefine free software to mean the same thing as freeware would be an uphill battle, considering all of the articles in Category:Free software. — Newslinger talk 09:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

If it costs money it's not free. duh ShortSirKitz (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

See the Free software article for the meaning of the word free in the context of software licensing. Mullvad's client apps are licensed under GPLv3, which is a free-software license. — Newslinger talk 23:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

mullvad and mull browser -- are they related?

and is Mull a mole in the old sense of the meaning mole? e.g. - The Communication Center was infiltrated by a rival business' mole operative. ShortSirKitz (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Mullvad browser and Mull browser related? It doesn't seem so. Sure, they are both privacy-focused and based on Firefox and they both have 'mull' in their name, but they are separate products, maintained by different companies (Mullvad VPN AB and Divested Computing Group, respectively). MichielN (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Broken infobox entry

The infobox "current version" reads "2025.9[2] / 8 September 2025; 8 September 2025; Error: first parameter cannot be parsed as a date or time." not sure how to fix this! Astromarsy (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Controversy of the owner

supports faschists... ~2026-36995-75 (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

So, create an entry about the "owner", if you know it's noteworthy and makes the Wikipedia's criteria. This is the way to go and I'm afraid there's no other even if it's a tad more difficult than dumping a box of bad English in the next best place. Sorry? How in the world is any of this pertinent to the subject at hand? *This* entry is not about a person, any person, or political party or donations whoever whatever: it's about a software company. Couple of people. And if Berntsson himself is not considered sufficiently notable for Wikipedia, clearly his alleged private donations are neither. That is why I'll remove it, and kindly ask anybody who disagrees to make your case here. Keep it civilized and remember what Wikipedia is not. In particular it's no place for your politics, personal spleen, venting, reviews, product testing, or manuals. -~2026-36872-03 (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not the person who first started this section on the talk page, but I am the one who added the Controversy section you removed, and I fail to see why this justifies the removal of my original edit? He's the founder of the company, one of the two owners, and is the public face of the operation. Once this donation was revealed, many people are now stating they'll cancel their membership, and it's causing many of their customers to argue whether this is or isn't a good thing for him to have done. It is most definitely a controversy, and it is most definitely related to the company.

This might be discussing an action he took, but he is the head of the company, the money for those actions came from Mullvad's profits, and his actions are having an impact on Mullvad VPN's customers, their subscriptions, and public sentiment.

I'm not a very long-time editor for Wikipedia, so I'm sure I could have gotten something wrong, but I just don't see why you believe that this criticism should only be valid if it's on a page dedicated just to him when it clearly impacts the company? MovedRemote (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

This controversy is certainly due in the article considering the coverage in three reliable sources (Flamman, TechRadar, and Gigazine). However, the article's description of this incident should ideally be based on sources that specifically mention the controversy, and not just the Örebro Party in general. — Newslinger talk 12:57, 1 July 2026 (UTC)