The free software definition presents the criteria for whether a @@ -31,7 +32,10 @@ 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.
@@ -45,13 +49,16 @@ an instrument of unjust power.
+The four essential freedoms
+A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms:
-
@@ -524,7 +567,7 @@ -- The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
+- The freedom to run the program as you wish, + for any purpose (freedom 0).
- 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. @@ -72,24 +79,30 @@ nonfree distribution schemes in terms of how far they fall short of being free, we consider them all equally unethical. -
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. -
+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.
-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. +“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.
+The rest of this page clarifies certain points about what makes +specific freedoms adequate or not.
+ +The freedom to run the program as you wish
+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 @@ -107,16 +120,7 @@ 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 -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 study the source code and make changes
In order for freedoms 1 and 3 (the freedom to make changes and the @@ -133,10 +137,9 @@ 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.
@@ -148,6 +151,29 @@
+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. +
+ +The freedom to redistribute if you wish: basic requirements
+ +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 @@ -157,26 +183,31 @@
-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.
+Copyleft
+-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.
-In the GNU project, we use -copyleft to protect the four freedoms legally for everyone. We -believe there are important reasons why +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, @@ -187,25 +218,10 @@ relate to each other.
--“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. -
- --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. -
+Rules about packaging and distribution details
-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 @@ -237,6 +253,8 @@ facility that allows you to specify the original program's name as an alias for the modified version.
+Export regulations
+Sometimes government export control regulations and trade sanctions can constrain your freedom to distribute copies of @@ -259,6 +277,16 @@ software nonfree.
+Legal considerations
+ ++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 @@ -273,6 +301,8 @@ law applies, or where litigation must be done, or both.
+Contract-based licenses
+Most free software licenses are based on copyright, and there are limits on what kinds of requirements can be imposed through copyright. If a @@ -292,6 +322,8 @@ it is nonfree.
+Use the right words when talking about free software
+When talking about free software, it is best to avoid using terms like “give away” or “for free,” because those terms imply that @@ -303,6 +335,8 @@ “free software” into various languages.
+How we interpret these criteria
+Finally, note that criteria such as those stated in this free software definition require careful thought for their interpretation. To decide @@ -317,6 +351,8 @@ it easier to see why certain licenses do or don't qualify.
+Get help with free licenses
+If you are interested in whether a specific license qualifies as a free software license, see our list @@ -364,7 +400,7 @@
Open Source?
-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 @@ -380,6 +416,13 @@
+
- Version +1.141: Clarify which code needs to be free.
+ +- Version +1.135: Say each time that freedom 0 is the freedom to run the program +as you wish.
+- Version 1.134: Freedom 0 is not a matter of the program's functionality.
@@ -479,7 +522,7 @@- Version 1.11: Note that a free license may require you to send a copy of -versions you distribute to the author.
+versions you distribute to previous developers on request.Copyright © 1996-2002, 2004-2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013 +
Copyright © 1996, 2002, 2004-2007, 2009-2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This page is licensed under a Creative -Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative +Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.Updated: -$Date: 2014/05/26 10:35:07 $ +$Date: 2016/11/16 21:34:47 $