-- +-The free software definition presents the criteria for whether a -particular software program qualifies as free software. From time to -time we revise this definition, to clarify it or to resolve questions -about subtle issues. See the History section -below for a list of changes that affect the definition of free -software. -
-
“Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the @@ -31,8 +32,19 @@ software. Thus, “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 beer”. We sometimes call it “libre +software,” borrowing the French or Spanish word for +“free” as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software +is gratis. +
+ ++You may have paid money to get copies of a free program, 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 sell copies.
+We campaign for these freedoms because everyone deserves them. With @@ -40,23 +52,94 @@ the program and what it does for them. When users don't control the program, we call it a “nonfree” or “proprietary” program. The nonfree program controls the -users, and the developer controls the program; which makes the +users, and the developer controls the program; this makes the program an instrument of unjust power.
-A program is free software if the program's users have the -four essential freedoms: +“Open source” is something different: it has a very +different philosophy based on different values. Its practical +definition is different too, but nearly all open source programs are +in fact free. We explain the +difference in +Why “Open Source” misses the point of Free Software.
++Have a question about free software licensing not answered here? +See our other licensing resources, +and if necessary contact the FSF Compliance Lab +at licensing@fsf.org.
++The free software definition presents the criteria for whether a +particular software program qualifies as free software. From time to +time we revise this definition, to clarify it or to resolve questions +about subtle issues. See the History section +below for a list of changes that affect the definition of free +software. +
+ ++A program is free software if the program's users have the +four essential freedoms: [1] +
+ +The rest of this page clarifies certain points about what makes -specific freedoms adequate or not.
+In any given scenario, these freedoms must apply to whatever code +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 +handle some cases. If we plan to distribute A as it stands, that +implies users will need B, so we need to judge whether both A and B +are free. However, if we plan to modify A so that it doesn't use B, +only A needs to be free; B is not pertinent to that plan.
-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 -anyone anywhere. Being free to do these -things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay -for permission to do so. + +
+“Free software” does not mean “noncommercial”. +On the contrary, a free program must be available for commercial use, +commercial development, and commercial distribution. This policy is +of fundamental importance—without this, free software could not +achieve its aims.
-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. +We want to invite everyone to use the GNU system, including businesses +and their workers. That requires allowing commercial use. We hope +that free replacement programs will supplant comparable proprietary +programs, but they can't do that if businesses are forbidden to use +them. We want commercial products that contain software to include +the GNU system, and that would constitute commercial distribution for +a price. Commercial development of free software is no longer +unusual; such free commercial software is very important. Paid, +professional support for free software fills an important need. +
+ ++Thus, to exclude commercial use, commercial development or commercial +distribution would hobble the free software community and obstruct its +path to success. We must conclude that a program licensed with such +restrictions does not qualify as free software. +
+ ++A free program must offer the four freedoms to any would-be user that +obtains a copy of the software, who has complied thus far with the +conditions of the free license covering the software in any previous +distribution of it. Putting some of the freedoms off limits to some +users, or requiring that users pay, in money or in kind, to exercise +them, is tantamount to not granting the freedoms in question, and thus +renders the program nonfree.
+ +In the rest of this article we explain more precisely how far the +various freedoms need to extend, on various issues, in order for a +program to be free.
+ +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 @@ -102,19 +224,30 @@
-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 -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. -
+The freedom to run the program as you wish means that you are not +forbidden or stopped from making it run. This has nothing to do with what +functionality the program has, whether it is technically capable of +functioning in any given environment, or whether it is useful for any +particular computing activity. + +For example, if the code arbitrarily rejects certain meaningful +inputs—or even fails unconditionally—that may make the +program less useful, perhaps even totally useless, but it does not +deny users the freedom to run the program, so it does not conflict +with freedom 0. If the program is free, the users can overcome the +loss of usefulness, because freedoms 1 and 3 permit users and +communities to make and distribute modified versions without the +arbitrary nuisance code.
+ +“As you wish” includes, optionally, “not at +all” if that is what you wish. So there is no need for a +separate “freedom not to run a program.”
+ +In order for freedoms 1 and 3 (the freedom to make changes and the -freedom to publish the changed versions) to be meaningful, you must have +freedom to publish the changed versions) to be meaningful, you need to 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 @@ -127,10 +260,9 @@ 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. +boot” — freedom 1 becomes an empty pretense rather than a +practical reality. These binaries are not free +software even if the source code they are compiled from is free.
@@ -142,50 +274,84 @@
+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. +
+ ++One special case of freedom 1 is to delete the program's code so it +returns after doing nothing, or make it invoke some other program. +Thus, freedom 1 includes the “freedom to delete the program.” +
+ +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 +anyone anywhere. Being free to do these +things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay +for permission to do so. +
+ ++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. +
+ +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 +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 add -restrictions to its terms, without your doing anything wrong to give -cause, the software is not free. +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 +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.
+-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 -when redistributing the program, you cannot add restrictions to deny -other people the central freedoms. This rule does not conflict with -the central freedoms; rather it protects them. +freedoms. For example, copyleft +(very simply stated) is the rule that when redistributing the program, +you cannot add restrictions to deny other people the central freedoms. +This rule does not conflict with the central freedoms; rather it +protects them.
-“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. -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 -sell copies. +In the GNU project, we use copyleft to protect the four freedoms +legally for everyone. We believe there are important reasons why +it is better to use +copyleft. However, + +noncopylefted free software is ethical +too. See Categories of Free +Software for a description of how “free software,” +“copylefted software” and other categories of software +relate to each other.
--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. -
+-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 @@ -217,19 +383,10 @@ facility that allows you to specify the original program's name as an alias for the modified version.
--In the GNU project, we use -copyleft -to protect these freedoms legally for everyone. But -noncopylefted -free software also exists. We believe there are important reasons why -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.) -
+-Sometimes government export control regulations +Sometimes government export control regulations and trade sanctions can constrain your freedom to distribute copies of programs internationally. Software developers do not have the power to eliminate or override these restrictions, but what they can and must do @@ -250,6 +407,32 @@ software nonfree.
++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. +
+ ++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 “all the programs you use”, 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. +
+ ++It is acceptable for a free license to specify which jurisdiction's +law applies, or where litigation must be done, or both. +
+ +Most free software licenses are based on copyright, and there are limits on what kinds of requirements can be imposed through copyright. If a @@ -269,19 +452,12 @@ 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 -the issue is about price, not freedom. Some common terms such -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. -
+-Finally, note that criteria such as those stated in this free software +Note that criteria such as those stated in this free software definition require careful thought for their interpretation. To decide whether a specific software license qualifies as a free software license, we judge it based on these criteria to determine whether it fits their @@ -294,6 +470,8 @@ it easier to see why certain licenses do or don't qualify.
+If you are interested in whether a specific license qualifies as a free software license, see our list @@ -316,7 +494,28 @@ and avoid various practical problems.
-+When talking about free software, it is best to avoid using terms +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 +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. +
+ ++Another group uses 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” never refers to freedom. +
+ +Software manuals must be free, @@ -328,7 +527,7 @@ 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.
@@ -337,17 +536,8 @@ has been extended to a definition of free cultural works applicable to any kind of works. - --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” -never refers to freedom. -
+