“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. +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”.
-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”. -
- --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, the program controls the users. The developer -controls the program, and through it exercises power over the users. -Therefore, a “nonfree” or “proprietary” program -is an -instrument of unjust power. +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 +52,8 @@
+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 @@ -128,10 +135,9 @@ 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.
@@ -162,10 +168,24 @@
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.
@@ -219,17 +239,6 @@ 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 @@ -252,6 +261,20 @@
+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 copyright-based license respects freedom in the ways described above, it @@ -358,6 +381,21 @@