“Free software” means software that respects users' -freedom and community. Roughly, the users have the freedom to run, -copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. With these -freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the -program and what it does for them. +freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the +freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the +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”. We sometimes call it “libre +software” to show we do not mean it is gratis.
-When users don't control the program, the program controls the users. -The developer controls the program, and through it controls the users. -This nonfree or “proprietary” program is therefore an -instrument of unjust power. -
- --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”. +We campaign for these freedoms because everyone deserves them. With +these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control +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; this makes the +program +an instrument of unjust power.
@@ -52,7 +53,8 @@
-A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, -you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without -modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to +A program is free software if it gives users adequately all of these +freedoms. Otherwise, it is nonfree. While we can distinguish various +nonfree distribution schemes in terms of how far they fall short of +being free, we consider them all equally unethical.
+ +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; we can ignore B.
+ +The rest of this page clarifies certain points about what makes +specific freedoms adequate or not.
+ +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. @@ -95,6 +113,12 @@
+The freedom to run the program as you wish means that you are not +forbidden or stopped from doing so. It has nothing to do with what +functionality the program has, or whether it is useful for what you +want to do.
+ +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 @@ -120,10 +144,9 @@ 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.
@@ -154,10 +177,24 @@
However, 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. +
+ ++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.
@@ -211,17 +248,6 @@ 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 and trade sanctions can constrain your freedom to distribute copies of programs internationally. Software developers do not have the power to @@ -229,8 +255,32 @@ is refuse to impose them as conditions of use of the program. In this way, the restrictions will not affect activities and people outside the jurisdictions of these governments. Thus, free software licenses -must not require obedience to any export regulations as a condition of -any of the essential freedoms. +must not require obedience to any nontrivial export regulations as a +condition of exercising any of the essential freedoms. +
+ ++Merely mentioning the existence of export regulations, without making +them a condition of the license itself, is acceptable since it does +not restrict users. If an export regulation is actually trivial for +free software, then requiring it as a condition is not an actual +problem; however, it is a potential problem, since a later change in +export law could make the requirement nontrivial and thus render the +software nonfree. +
+ ++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.
@@ -324,7 +374,7 @@
-Another group has started using the term “open source” to mean +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 @@ -340,6 +390,33 @@
There are gaps in the version numbers shown above because there are -other changes in this page that do not affect the definition as such. -These changes are in other parts of the page. You can review the -complete list of changes to the page through +other changes in this page that do not affect the definition or its +interpretations. For instance, the list does not include changes in +asides, formatting, spelling, punctuation, or other parts of the page. +You can review the complete list of changes to the page through the cvsweb interface.
- + - - - -