++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. +
+
-We maintain this free software definition to show clearly what must be -true about a particular software program for it to be considered free -software. From time to time we revise this definition to clarify it. -If you would like to review the changes we've made, please see -the History section below for more information. +“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.
-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.
+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.
-Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, -study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it means that the -program's users have the four essential freedoms: +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”. +
+ ++A program is free software if the program's users have the +four essential freedoms:
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 +freedom to publish the changed 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 -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. +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.
@@ -112,7 +135,7 @@
-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 @@ -123,9 +146,9 @@
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 change -its terms, without your doing anything wrong to give cause, the -software is not free. +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.
@@ -138,7 +161,7 @@
-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.
@@ -150,40 +173,52 @@
Whether a change constitutes an improvement is a subjective matter. -If your modifications are limited, in substance, to changes that -someone else considers an improvement, that is not freedom. +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, 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. +
+ ++A special issue arises when a license requires changing the name by +which the program will be invoked from other programs. That +effectively hampers you from releasing your changed version so that it +can replace the original when invoked by those other programs. This +sort of requirement is acceptable only if there's a suitable aliasing +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
+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 +254,13 @@
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.
@@ -264,7 +299,7 @@ and avoid various practical problems.
-Software manuals must be free, @@ -276,7 +311,7 @@ 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.
@@ -286,31 +321,48 @@ 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
+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.
From time to time we revise this Free Software Definition to -clarify it. Here we provide a list of those modifications, along with -links to illustrate exactly what changed, so that others can review -them if they like.
+From time to time we revise this Free Software Definition. Here is +the list of substantive changes, along with links to show exactly what +was changed.
There are gaps in the version numbers because there are many other
-changes that do not affect the substance of the definition at all.
-Instead, they fix links, add translations, and so on. If you would
-like to review the complete list of changes, you can do so on
-our cvsweb
+ 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
+the cvsweb
interface.
-Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, -2005, 2006, 2007, 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc. +Copyright © 1996-2002, 2004-2007, 2009, 2010, 2012 Free Software +Foundation, Inc.
-Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is -permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is -preserved. +
This page is licensed under a Creative +Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.
--Updated: + + +
Updated: -$Date: 2009/12/12 14:56:55 $ +$Date: 2013/05/27 03:49:32 $
-