--- www/philosophy/free-sw.html 2009/12/12 14:56:55 1.89 +++ www/philosophy/free-sw.html 2010/11/08 20:25:05 1.102 @@ -20,9 +20,9 @@

-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.”

@@ -40,9 +40,9 @@

  • The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
    • -
  • The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements - (and modified versions in general) - to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). +
  • The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions + to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole + community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
    • @@ -89,15 +89,17 @@ 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. +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 (through -blacklisting) as “secure boot” — freedom 1 becomes a +a practice known as “tivoization” 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 +114,7 @@

    -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 @@ -138,7 +140,7 @@

    -Free software does not mean noncommercial. 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. @@ -155,35 +157,38 @@

    -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.)

    @@ -219,13 +224,13 @@

    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 proper translations of -free software into various languages. +“free software” into various languages.

    @@ -289,11 +294,11 @@

    Open Source?

    -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.

    @@ -306,11 +311,18 @@