We maintain this free software definition to show clearly what must be @@ -33,9 +36,9 @@
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 (through -blacklisting) 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. +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.
@@ -112,7 +118,7 @@
-Freedom 3 includes the freedom to use release your modified versions +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 @@ -155,35 +161,38 @@
-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 you identify -your modifications as yours, or that, if you have distributed a modified -version and a previous developer asks for a copy of it, you must send -one. +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. (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. +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.)
@@ -276,7 +285,7 @@ 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.
@@ -306,6 +315,14 @@-Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, -2005, 2006, 2007, 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc. +Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, +2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
-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: 2010/03/09 22:51:49 $ +$Date: 2011/11/29 14:14:10 $
-