-Free software
is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand
-the concept, you should think of free
as in free speech,
-not as in free beer.
+“Free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand
+the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,”
+not as in “free beer.”
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, -study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to -four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software: +study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it means that the +program's users have the four essential freedoms:
@@ -69,7 +70,7 @@ overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity. In this freedom, it is the user's purpose that matters, not the developer's -purpose; you as a user are free to run a program for your purposes, +purpose; you as a user are free to run the program for your purposes, and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her.
@@ -78,7 +79,7 @@ The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable forms of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and unmodified versions. (Distributing programs in runnable form is necessary -for conveniently installable free operating systems.) It is ok if there +for conveniently installable free operating systems.) It is OK if there is no way to produce a binary or executable form for a certain program (since some languages don't support that feature), but you must have the freedom to redistribute such forms should you find or develop a way to @@ -86,27 +87,49 @@-In order for the freedoms to make changes, and to publish improved -versions, to be meaningful, you must have access to the source code of -the program. Therefore, accessibility of source code is a necessary -condition for free software. +In order for freedoms 1 and 3 (the freedom to make changes and the +freedom to publish improved versions) to be meaningful, you must have +access to the source code of the program. Therefore, accessibility of +source code is a necessary condition for free software. Obfuscated +“source code” is not real source code and does not count +as source code. +
+ ++Freedom 1 includes the freedom to use your changed version in place of +the original. If the program is delivered in a product designed to +run someone else's modified versions but refuse to run yours — a +practice known as “tivoization” or “lockdown”, +or (in its practitioners' perverse terminology) as “secure +boot” — freedom 1 becomes a theoretical fiction rather +than a practical freedom. This is not sufficient. In other words, +these binaries are not free software even if the source code they are +compiled from is free.
One important way to modify a program is by merging in available free subroutines and modules. If the program's license says that you -cannot merge in a suitably-licensed existing module, such as if it -requires you to be the copyright holder of any code you add, then the +cannot merge in a suitably licensed existing module — for instance, if it +requires you to be the copyright holder of any code you add — then the license is too restrictive to qualify as free.
-In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be irrevocable as -long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the -power to revoke the license, or replace it with a different license -(since this implies revoking the old license), -without your doing anything wrong to give cause, the software is not -free. +Freedom 3 includes the freedom to release your modified versions +as free software. A free license may also permit other ways of +releasing them; in other words, it does not have to be +a copyleft license. However, a +license that requires modified versions to be nonfree does not qualify +as a free license. +
+ ++In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be permanent and +irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the +software has the power to revoke the license, or retroactively change +its terms, without your doing anything wrong to give cause, the +software is not free.
@@ -119,7 +142,7 @@
-Free software
does not mean non-commercial.
A free
+“Free software” does not mean “noncommercial.” A free
program must be available for commercial use, commercial development,
and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software
is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important.
@@ -136,34 +159,38 @@
-However, rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable, if they
-don't substantively limit your freedom to release modified versions, or
-your freedom to make and use modified versions privately. Rules that if
-you make your version available in this way, you must make it available in
-that way also
can be acceptable too, on the same condition. (Note that
-such a rule still leaves you the choice of whether to publish your version
-at all.) Rules that require release of source code to the users for
-versions that you put into public use are also acceptable. It is also
-acceptable for the license to require that, if you have distributed a
+However, rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable,
+if they don't substantively limit your freedom to release modified
+versions, or your freedom to make and use modified versions privately.
+Thus, it is acceptable for the license to require that you change the
+name of the modified version, remove a logo, or identify your
+modifications as yours. As long as these requirements are not so
+burdensome that they effectively hamper you from releasing your
+changes, they are acceptable; you're already making other changes to
+the program, so you won't have trouble making a few more.
+
+Rules that “if you make your version available in this way, you +must make it available in that way also” can be acceptable too, +on the same condition. An example of such an acceptable rule is one +saying that if you have distributed a modified version and a previous developer asks for a copy of it, you -must send one, or that you identify yourself on your modifications. +must send one. (Note that such a rule still leaves you the choice of +whether to distribute your version at all.) Rules that require release +of source code to the users for versions that you put into public use +are also acceptable.
In the GNU project, we use
-copyleft
+copyleft
to protect these freedoms legally for everyone. But
-non-copylefted
+noncopylefted
free software also exists. We believe there are important reasons why
- it is better to use copyleft,
-but if your program is non-copylefted free software, it is still basically
-ethical.
-
-See Categories of Free Software
-for a description of how free software,
copylefted software
-and other categories of software relate to each other.
+it is better to use copyleft,
+but if your program is noncopylefted free software, it is still basically
+ethical. (See Categories of Free Software for a description of how “free software,” “copylefted software” and other categories of software relate to each other.)
@@ -186,7 +213,7 @@ (though this does happen occasionally). However, some free software licenses are based on contracts, and contracts can impose a much larger range of possible restrictions. That means there are many possible ways -such a license could be unacceptably restrictive and non-free. +such a license could be unacceptably restrictive and nonfree.
@@ -194,18 +221,18 @@ contract-based license restricts the user in an unusual way that copyright-based licenses cannot, and which isn't mentioned here as legitimate, we will have to think about it, and we will probably conclude -it is non-free. +it is nonfree.
When talking about free software, it is best to avoid using terms
-like give away
or for free,
because those terms imply that
+like “give away” or “for free,” because those terms imply that
the issue is about price, not freedom. Some common terms such
-as piracy
embody opinions we hope you won't endorse. See
+as “piracy” embody opinions we hope you won't endorse. See
Confusing Words and Phrases that
are Worth Avoiding for a discussion of these terms. We also have
-a list of translations of
-free software
into various languages.
+a list of proper translations of
+“free software” into various languages.
@@ -231,16 +258,16 @@
-If you are contemplating writing a new license, please contact the FSF -by writing to that address. The proliferation of different free software -licenses means increased work for users in understanding the licenses; -we may be able to help you find an existing Free Software license that -meets your needs. +If you are contemplating writing a new license, please contact the +Free Software Foundation first by writing to that address. The +proliferation of different free software licenses means increased work +for users in understanding the licenses; we may be able to help you +find an existing free software license that meets your needs.
If that isn't possible, if you really need a new license, with our -help you can ensure that the license really is a Free Software license +help you can ensure that the license really is a free software license and avoid various practical problems.
@@ -256,7 +283,7 @@ The same arguments also make sense for other kinds of works of practical use — that is to say, works that embody useful knowledge, such as educational works and reference -works. Wikipedia is the best known +works. Wikipedia is the best-known example. @@ -269,11 +296,11 @@
-Another group has started using the term open source
to mean
-something close (but not identical) to free software.
We
-prefer the term free software
because, once you have heard that
+Another group has started using the term “open source” to mean
+something close (but not identical) to “free software.” We
+prefer the term “free software” because, once you have heard that
it refers to freedom rather than price, it calls to mind freedom. The
-word open
+word “open”
never refers to freedom.
Please send FSF & GNU inquiries to
-gnu@gnu.org.
+<gnu@gnu.org>.
There are also other ways to contact
the FSF.
Please send broken links and other corrections or suggestions to
-webmasters@gnu.org.
+<webmasters@gnu.org>.
@@ -368,117 +421,121 @@
-Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, -2005, 2006, 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc., +Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, +2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
-51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA -Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is -permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is -preserved. +
This page is licensed under a Creative +Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.
Updated: -$Date: 2008/12/10 20:42:41 $ +$Date: 2011/09/20 08:15:37 $
-