/[www]/www/philosophy/free-sw.html

Diff of /www/philosophy/free-sw.html

Parent Directory | Revision Log | View Patch Patch

-revision 1.126 by rms,
Fri Dec 20 09:31:03 2013 UTC
+revision 1.157 by rms,
Sat Mar 31 00:52:50 2018 UTC
 Line 1
  <!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
- <!-- Parent-Version: 1.75 -->
+ <!-- Parent-Version: 1.84 -->
  <title>What is free software?
  - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
 Line 11
  <h2>What is free software?</h2>
+ <blockquote class="note" id="fsf-licensing"><p style="font-size: 80%">
+ Have a question about free software licensing not answered here?
+ See our other <a href="http://www.fsf.org/licensing">licensing resources</a>,
+ and if necessary contact the FSF Compliance Lab
+ at <a href="mailto:licensing@fsf.org">licensing@fsf.org</a>.</p>
+ </blockquote>
  <h3>The Free Software Definition</h3>
  <blockquote>
-Line 22 
 about subtle issues.  See the <a href="#
+Line 29 
 about subtle issues.  See the <a href="#
  below for a list of changes that affect the definition of free
  software.
  </p>
- </blockquote>
  <p>
- &ldquo;Free software&rdquo; means software that respects users'
+ &ldquo;Open source&rdquo; is something different: it has a very
- freedom and community.  Roughly, <b>the users have the freedom to run,
+ different philosophy based on different values.  Its practical
- copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software</b>.
+ definition is different too, but nearly all open source programs are
+ in fact free.  We explain the
+ difference <a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">here</a>.
  </p>
+ </blockquote>
  <p>
- Thus, &ldquo;free software&rdquo; is a matter of liberty, not price.
+ &ldquo;Free software&rdquo; means software that respects users'
- To understand the concept, you should think of &ldquo;free&rdquo; as
+ freedom and community.  Roughly, it means that <b>the users have the
- in &ldquo;free speech,&rdquo; not as in &ldquo;free beer&rdquo;.
+ freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the
+ software</b>.  Thus, &ldquo;free software&rdquo; is a matter of
+ liberty, not price.  To understand the concept, you should think of
+ &ldquo;free&rdquo; as in &ldquo;free speech,&rdquo; not as in
+ &ldquo;free beer&rdquo;.  We sometimes call it &ldquo;libre
+ software,&rdquo; borrowing the French or Spanish word for
+ &ldquo;free&rdquo; as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software
+ is gratis.
  </p>
  <p>
- With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively)
+ We campaign for these freedoms because everyone deserves them.  With
- control the program and what it does for them.  When users don't
+ these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control
- control the program, the program controls the users.  The developer
+ the program and what it does for them.  When users don't control the
- controls the program, and through it exercises power over the users.
+ program, we call it a &ldquo;nonfree&rdquo; or
- Therefore, a &ldquo;nonfree&rdquo; or &ldquo;proprietary&rdquo; program
+ &ldquo;proprietary&rdquo; program.  The nonfree program controls the
- is <a href="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html"> an
+ users, and the developer controls the program; this makes the
- instrument of unjust power</a>.
+ program <a href="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html">
+ an instrument of unjust power</a>.
  </p>
+ <h4> The four essential freedoms</h4>
  <p>
  A program is free software if the program's users have the
  four essential freedoms:
  </p>
  <ul>
-   <li>The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).</li>
+   <li>The freedom to run the program as you wish,
+       for any purpose (freedom 0).</li>
    <li>The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it
        does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source
        code is a precondition for this.
    </li>
-   <li>The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
+   <li>The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others
        (freedom 2).
    </li>
    <li>The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions
-Line 73 
 freedoms.  Otherwise, it is nonfree.  Wh
+Line 93 
 freedoms.  Otherwise, it is nonfree.  Wh
  nonfree distribution schemes in terms of how far they fall short of
  being free, we consider them all equally unethical.</p>
- <p>The rest of this page clarifies certain points about what makes
+ <p>In any given scenario, these freedoms must apply to whatever code
- specific freedoms adequate or not.</p>
+ we plan to make use of, or lead others to make use of.  For instance,
+ consider a program A which automatically launches a program B to
- <p>Freedom to distribute (freedoms 2 and 3) means you are free to
+ handle some cases.  If we plan to distribute A as it stands, that
- redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either
+ implies users will need B, so we need to judge whether both A and B
- gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to
+ are free.  However, if we plan to modify A so that it doesn't use B,
- <a href="#exportcontrol">anyone anywhere</a>.  Being free to do these
+ only A needs to be free; B is not pertinent to that plan.</p>
- things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay
- for permission to do so.
- </p>
  <p>
- You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them
+ &ldquo;Free software&rdquo; does not mean &ldquo;noncommercial&rdquo;.  A free
- privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they
+ program must be available for commercial use, commercial development,
- exist.  If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to
+ and commercial distribution.  Commercial development of free software
- notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.
+ is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important.
+ You may have paid money to get copies of free software, or you may have
+ obtained copies at no charge.  But regardless of how you got your copies,
+ you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to
+ <a href="/philosophy/selling.html">sell copies</a>.
  </p>
+ <p>The rest of this page clarifies certain points about what makes
+ specific freedoms adequate or not.</p>
+ <h4>The freedom to run the program as you wish</h4>
  <p>
  The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person
  or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of
-Line 103 
 for her purposes, but you are not entitl
+Line 129 
 for her purposes, but you are not entitl
  </p>
  <p>
- The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable
+ The freedom to run the program as you wish means that you are not
- forms of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and
+ forbidden or stopped from making it run.  This has nothing to do with what
- unmodified versions.  (Distributing programs in runnable form is necessary
+ functionality the program has, whether it is technically capable of
- for conveniently installable free operating systems.)  It is OK if there
+ functioning in any given environment, or whether it is useful for any
- is no way to produce a binary or executable form for a certain program
+ particular computing activity.</p>
- (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
+ <h4>The freedom to study the source code and make changes</h4>
- make them.
- </p>
  <p>
  In order for freedoms 1 and 3 (the freedom to make changes and the
-Line 128 
 the original.  If the program is deliver
+Line 152 
 the original.  If the program is deliver
  run someone else's modified versions but refuse to run yours &mdash; a
  practice known as &ldquo;tivoization&rdquo; or &ldquo;lockdown&rdquo;,
  or (in its practitioners' perverse terminology) as &ldquo;secure
- boot&rdquo; &mdash; freedom 1 becomes a theoretical fiction rather
+ boot&rdquo; &mdash; freedom 1 becomes an empty pretense rather than a
- than a practical freedom.  This is not sufficient.  In other words,
+ practical reality.  These binaries are not free
- these binaries are not free software even if the source code they are
+ software even if the source code they are compiled from is free.
- compiled from is free.
  </p>
  <p>
-Line 143 
 license is too restrictive to qualify as
+Line 166 
 license is too restrictive to qualify as
  </p>
  <p>
+ Whether a change constitutes an improvement is a subjective matter.
+ If your right to modify a program is limited, in substance, to changes that
+ someone else considers an improvement, that program is not free.
+ </p>
+ <h4>The freedom to redistribute if you wish: basic requirements</h4>
+ <p>Freedom to distribute (freedoms 2 and 3) means you are free to
+ redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either
+ gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to
+ <a href="#exportcontrol">anyone anywhere</a>.  Being free to do these
+ things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay
+ for permission to do so.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them
+ privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they
+ exist.  If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to
+ notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.
+ </p>
+ <p>
  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
-Line 152 
 as a free license.
+Line 198 
 as a free license.
  </p>
  <p>
- In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be permanent and
+ The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable
- irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the
+ forms of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and
- software has the power to revoke the license, or retroactively add
+ unmodified versions.  (Distributing programs in runnable form is necessary
- restrictions to its terms, without your doing anything wrong to give
+ for conveniently installable free operating systems.)  It is OK if there
- cause, the software is not free.
+ 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
+ make them.
  </p>
+ <h4>Copyleft</h4>
  <p>
- However, certain kinds of rules about the manner of distributing free
+ Certain kinds of rules about the manner of distributing free
  software are acceptable, when they don't conflict with the central
- freedoms.  For example, copyleft (very simply stated) is the rule that
+ freedoms.  For example, <a href="/copyleft/copyleft.html">copyleft</a>
- when redistributing the program, you cannot add restrictions to deny
+ (very simply stated) is the rule that when redistributing the program,
- other people the central freedoms.  This rule does not conflict with
+ you cannot add restrictions to deny other people the central freedoms.
- the central freedoms; rather it protects them.
+ This rule does not conflict with the central freedoms; rather it
+ protects them.
  </p>
  <p>
- &ldquo;Free software&rdquo; does not mean &ldquo;noncommercial&rdquo;.  A free
+ In the GNU project, we use copyleft to protect the four freedoms
- program must be available for commercial use, commercial development,
+ legally for everyone.  We believe there are important reasons why
- and commercial distribution.  Commercial development of free software
+ <a href="/philosophy/pragmatic.html">it is better to use
- is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important.
+ copyleft</a>.  However,
- You may have paid money to get copies of free software, or you may have
+ <a href="/philosophy/categories.html#Non-CopyleftedFreeSoftware">
- obtained copies at no charge.  But regardless of how you got your copies,
+ noncopylefted free software</a> is ethical
- you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to
+ too.  See <a href="/philosophy/categories.html">Categories of Free
- <a href="/philosophy/selling.html">sell copies</a>.
+ Software</a> for a description of how &ldquo;free software,&rdquo;
+ &ldquo;copylefted software&rdquo; and other categories of software
+ relate to each other.
  </p>
- <p>
+ <h4>Rules about packaging and distribution details</h4>
- Whether a change constitutes an improvement is a subjective matter.
- If your right to modify a program is limited, in substance, to changes that
- someone else considers an improvement, that program is not free.
- </p>
  <p>
- However, rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable,
+ 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
-Line 218 
 sort of requirement is acceptable only i
+Line 268 
 sort of requirement is acceptable only i
  facility that allows you to specify the original program's name as an
  alias for the modified version.</p>
- <p>
+ <h4>Export regulations</h4>
- In the GNU project, we use
- <a href="/copyleft/copyleft.html">copyleft</a>
- to protect these freedoms legally for everyone.  But
- <a href="/philosophy/categories.html#Non-CopyleftedFreeSoftware">noncopylefted
- free software</a> also exists.  We believe there are important reasons why
- <a href="/philosophy/pragmatic.html">it is better to use copyleft</a>,
- but if your program is noncopylefted free software, it is still basically
- ethical. (See <a href="/philosophy/categories.html">Categories of Free Software</a> for a description of how &ldquo;free software,&rdquo; &ldquo;copylefted software&rdquo; and other categories of software relate to each other.)
- </p>
  <p>
  Sometimes government <a id="exportcontrol">export control regulations</a>
-Line 251 
 export law could make the requirement no
+Line 292 
 export law could make the requirement no
  software nonfree.
  </p>
+ <h4>Legal considerations</h4>
+ <p>
+ 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 add
+ restrictions to its terms, without your doing anything wrong to give
+ cause, the software is not free.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ A free license may not require compliance with the license of a
+ nonfree program.  Thus, for instance, if a license requires you to
+ comply with the licenses of &ldquo;all the programs you use&rdquo;, in
+ the case of a user that runs nonfree programs this would require
+ compliance with the licenses of those nonfree programs; that makes the
+ license nonfree.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ It is acceptable for a free license to specify which jurisdiction's
+ law applies, or where litigation must be done, or both.
+ </p>
+ <h4>Contract-based licenses</h4>
  <p>
  Most free software licenses are based on copyright, and there are limits
  on what kinds of requirements can be imposed through copyright.  If a
-Line 270 
 legitimate, we will have to think about
+Line 337 
 legitimate, we will have to think about
  it is nonfree.
  </p>
+ <h4>Use the right words when talking about free software</h4>
  <p>
  When talking about free software, it is best to avoid using terms
  like &ldquo;give away&rdquo; or &ldquo;for free,&rdquo; because those terms imply that
-Line 281 
 a list of proper <a href="/philosophy/fs
+Line 350 
 a list of proper <a href="/philosophy/fs
  &ldquo;free software&rdquo;</a> into various languages.
  </p>
+ <h4>How we interpret these criteria</h4>
  <p>
  Finally, note that criteria such as those stated in this free software
  definition require careful thought for their interpretation.  To decide
-Line 295 
 a conclusion about a new issue, we often
+Line 366 
 a conclusion about a new issue, we often
  it easier to see why certain licenses do or don't qualify.
  </p>
+ <h4>Get help with free licenses</h4>
  <p>
  If you are interested in whether a specific license qualifies as a free
  software license, see our <a href="/licenses/license-list.html">list
-Line 342 
 free cultural works</a> applicable to an
+Line 415 
 free cultural works</a> applicable to an
  <h3 id="open-source">Open Source?</h3>
  <p>
- Another group has started using the term &ldquo;open source&rdquo; to mean
+ Another group uses the term &ldquo;open source&rdquo; to mean
  something close (but not identical) to &ldquo;free software&rdquo;.  We
  prefer the term &ldquo;free software&rdquo; because, once you have heard that
  it refers to freedom rather than price, it calls to mind freedom.  The
-Line 358 
 was changed.</p>
+Line 431 
 was changed.</p>
  <ul>
+ <li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.152&amp;r2=1.153">Version
+.153</a>: Clarify that freedom to run the program means nothing stops
+ you from making it run.</li>
+ <li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.140&amp;r2=1.141">Version
+.141</a>: Clarify which code needs to be free.</li>
+ <li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.134&amp;r2=1.135">Version
+.135</a>: Say each time that freedom 0 is the freedom to run the program
+ as you wish.</li>
+ <li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.133&amp;r2=1.134">Version
+.134</a>: Freedom 0 is not a matter of the program's functionality.</li>
+ <li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.130&amp;r2=1.131">Version
+.131</a>: A free license may not require compliance with a nonfree license
+ of another program.</li>
+ <li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.128&amp;r2=1.129">Version
+.129</a>: State explicitly that choice of law and choice of forum
+ specifications are allowed.  (This was always our policy.)</li>
  <li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.121&amp;r2=1.122">Version
 .122</a>: An export control requirement is a real problem if the
  requirement is nontrivial; otherwise it is only a potential problem.</li>
-Line 446 
 licenses.</li>
+Line 541 
 licenses.</li>
  <li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.10&amp;r2=1.11">Version
 .11</a>: Note that a free license may require you to send a copy of
- versions you distribute to the author.</li>
+ versions you distribute to previous developers on request.</li>
  </ul>
-Line 462 
 interface</a>.</p>
+Line 557 
 interface</a>.</p>
  </div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
  <!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
  <div id="footer">
+ <div class="unprintable">
  <p>Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
  <a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</a>.
-Line 486 
 Please see the <a
+Line 582 
 Please see the <a
  href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
  README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
  of this article.</p>
+ </div>
  <!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
       files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
-      be under CC BY-ND 3.0 US.  Please do NOT change or remove this
+      be under CC BY-ND 4.0.  Please do NOT change or remove this
       without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
       Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
       document.  For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
-Line 504 
 of this article.</p>
+Line 601 
 of this article.</p>
       There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
       Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
- <p>Copyright &copy; 1996-2002, 2004-2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013
+ <p>Copyright &copy; 1996, 2002, 2004-2007, 2009-2018
  Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
  <p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
- href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative
+ href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
- Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.</p>
+ Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p>
  <!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
- <p>Updated:
+ <p class="unprintable">Updated:
  <!-- timestamp start -->
  $Date$
  <!-- timestamp end -->

 Legend:



Removed from v.1.126
 


changed lines


 
Added in v.1.157
 Legend:



Removed from v.1.126
 


changed lines


 
Added in v.1.157
-Removed from v.1.126
+Added in v.1.157

savannah-hackers-public@gnu.org	ViewVC Help
Powered by ViewVC 1.1.26