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

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

Parent Directory | Revision Log | View Patch Patch

-revision 1.121 by rms,
Mon May 27 03:49:32 2013 UTC
+revision 1.159 by th_g,
Mon Apr 23 17:57:32 2018 UTC
 Line 1
  <!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+ <!-- Parent-Version: 1.85 -->
- <title>What is free software? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)</title>
+ <title>What is free software?
+ - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
  <meta http-equiv="Keywords" content="GNU, FSF, Free Software Foundation, Linux, Emacs, GCC, Unix, Free Software, Operating System, GNU Kernel, HURD, GNU HURD, Hurd" />
  <meta http-equiv="Description" content="Since 1983, developing the free Unix style operating system GNU, so that computer users can have the freedom to share and improve the software they use." />
- <link rel="alternate" title="What's New" href="http://www.gnu.org/rss/whatsnew.rss" type="application/rss+xml" />
- <link rel="alternate" title="New Free Software" href="http://www.gnu.org/rss/quagga.rss" type="application/rss+xml" />
  <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/free-sw.translist" -->
  <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
  <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 23 
 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>.  With these
+ definition is different too, but nearly all open source programs are
- freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the
+ in fact free.  We explain the
- program and what it does for them.
+ difference in <a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">
+ Why &ldquo;Open Source&rdquo; misses the point of Free Software</a>.
  </p>
+ </blockquote>
  <p>
- When users don't control the program, the program controls the users.
+ &ldquo;Free software&rdquo; means software that respects users'
- The developer controls the program, and through it controls the users.
+ freedom and community.  Roughly, it means that <b>the users have the
- This nonfree or &ldquo;proprietary&rdquo; program is therefore an
+ freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the
- instrument of unjust power.
+ 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>
- Thus, &ldquo;free software&rdquo; is a matter of liberty, not price.
+ We campaign for these freedoms because everyone deserves them.  With
- To understand the concept, you should think of &ldquo;free&rdquo; as
+ these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control
- in &ldquo;free speech,&rdquo; not as in &ldquo;free beer&rdquo;.
+ the program and what it does for them.  When users don't control the
+ program, we call it a &ldquo;nonfree&rdquo; or
+ &ldquo;proprietary&rdquo; program.  The nonfree program controls the
+ users, and the developer controls the program; this makes the
+ 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:
+ four essential freedoms: <a href="#f1">[1]</a>
  </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 68 
 four essential freedoms:
+Line 89 
 four essential freedoms:
  </ul>
  <p>
- A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms.  Thus,
+ A program is free software if it gives users adequately all of these
- you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without
+ freedoms.  Otherwise, it is nonfree.  While we can distinguish various
- modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to
+ nonfree distribution schemes in terms of how far they fall short of
- <a href="#exportcontrol">anyone anywhere</a>.  Being free to do these
+ being free, we consider them all equally unethical.</p>
- things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay
- for permission to do so.
+ <p>In any given scenario, these freedoms must apply to whatever code
- </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
+ 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.</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 95 
 for her purposes, but you are not entitl
+Line 130 
 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 120 
 the original.  If the program is deliver
+Line 153 
 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 135 
 license is too restrictive to qualify as
+Line 167 
 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 144 
 as a free license.
+Line 199 
 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 210 
 sort of requirement is acceptable only i
+Line 269 
 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 229 
 eliminate or override these restrictions
+Line 279 
 eliminate or override these restrictions
  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
+ must not require obedience to any nontrivial export regulations as a
- any of the essential freedoms.
+ condition of exercising any of the essential freedoms.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ 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.
+ </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
  copyright-based license respects freedom in the ways described above, it
-Line 252 
 legitimate, we will have to think about
+Line 338 
 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 263 
 a list of proper <a href="/philosophy/fs
+Line 351 
 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 277 
 a conclusion about a new issue, we often
+Line 367 
 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 324 
 free cultural works</a> applicable to an
+Line 416 
 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 340 
 was changed.</p>
+Line 432 
 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>
+ <li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.117&amp;r2=1.118">Version
+.118</a>: Clarification: the issue is limits on your right to modify,
+ not on what modifications you have made.  And modifications are not limited
+ to &ldquo;improvements&rdquo;</li>
  <li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.110&amp;r2=1.111">Version
 .111</a>: Clarify 1.77 by saying that only
  retroactive <em>restrictions</em> are unacceptable.  The copyright
-Line 419 
 licenses.</li>
+Line 542 
 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>
  <p>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.
+ other changes in this page that do not affect the definition or its
- These changes are in other parts of the page.  You can review the
+ interpretations.  For instance, the list does not include changes in
- complete list of changes to the page through
+ asides, formatting, spelling, punctuation, or other parts of the page.
+ You can review the complete list of changes to the page through
  the <a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;view=log">cvsweb
  interface</a>.</p>
- </div>
+ <h3 style="font-size:1em">Footnote</h3>
+ <ol>
+ <li id="f1">The reason they are numbered 0, 1, 2 and 3 is historical. Around
+there were three freedoms, numbered 1, 2 and 3. Then we realized that
+ the freedom to run the program needed to be mentioned explicitly.
+ It was clearly more basic than the other three, so it properly should
+ precede them. Rather than renumber the others, we made it freedom&nbsp;0.</li>
+ </ol>
+ </div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
  <!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
  <div id="footer">
+ <div class="unprintable">
- <p>
+ <p>Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
- Please send FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
  <a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</a>.
  There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
- the FSF.
+ the FSF.  Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
- <br />
+ to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org">&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</a>.</p>
- Please send broken links and other corrections or suggestions to
- <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org">&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</a>.
+ <p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
- </p>
+         replace it with the translation of these two:
+         We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+         translations.  However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+         Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+         to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
+         &lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;</a>.</p>
+         <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+         our web pages, see <a
+         href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+         README</a>. -->
+ 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>
- <p>
+ <!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
- Please see the
+      files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
- <a href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+      be under CC BY-ND 4.0.  Please do NOT change or remove this
- README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting
+      without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
- translations of this article.
+      Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
- </p>
+      document.  For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+      document was modified, or published.
+      If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+      Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+      years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+      year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+      being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+      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, 2009-2018
+ Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
- <p>
- Copyright &copy; 1996-2002, 2004-2007, 2009, 2010, 2012 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>.
+ Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p>
- </p>
  <!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
- <p>Updated:
+ <p class="unprintable">Updated:
  <!-- timestamp start -->
  $Date$
  <!-- timestamp end -->
  </p>
  </div>
  </div>
  </body>
  </html>

 Legend:



Removed from v.1.121
 


changed lines


 
Added in v.1.159
 Legend:



Removed from v.1.121
 


changed lines


 
Added in v.1.159
-Removed from v.1.121
+Added in v.1.159

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