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

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

Parent Directory | Revision Log | View Patch Patch

-revision 1.55 by mattl,
Wed Feb  7 02:35:32 2007 UTC
+revision 1.164 by gnun,
Wed Mar 20 10:56:16 2019 UTC
 Line 1
  <!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+ <!-- Parent-Version: 1.86 -->
- <title>The Free Software Definition - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)</title>
+ <title>What is free software?
+ - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+ <style type="text/css" media="print,screen"><!--
+ .note { margin-left: 6%; margin-right: 6%; }
+ @media (min-width: 48em) {
+    .note { margin-top: .8em; }
+ }
+ --></style>
  <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" -->
- <h1>The Free Software Definition</h1>
+ <h2>What is free software?</h2>
- <p>
+ <div class="article">
- We maintain this free software definition to show clearly what must
+ <h3>The Free Software Definition</h3>
- be true about a particular software program for it to be considered
- free software.
+ <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>
+ <div class="comment">
+ <p>
+ 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 <a href="#History">History section</a>
+ below for a list of changes that affect the definition of free
+ software.
  </p>
  <p>
- <q>Free software</q> is a matter of liberty, not price.  To understand
+ &ldquo;Open source&rdquo; is something different: it has a very
- the concept, you should think of <q>free</q> as in <q>free speech,</q>
+ different philosophy based on different values.  Its practical
- not as in <q>free beer.</q>
+ definition is different too, but nearly all open source programs are
+ in fact free.  We explain the
+ difference in <a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">
+ Why &ldquo;Open Source&rdquo; misses the point of Free Software</a>.
  </p>
+ </div>
  <p>
- Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute,
+ &ldquo;Free software&rdquo; means software that respects users'
- study, change and improve the software.  More precisely, it refers to
+ freedom and community.  Roughly, it means that <b>the users have the
- four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
+ freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the
+ 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>
- <ul>
+ <p>
-   <li>The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).</li>
+ We campaign for these freedoms because everyone deserves them.  With
-   <li>The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to
+ these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control
-       your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition
+ the program and what it does for them.  When users don't control the
-       for this.
+ 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: <a href="#f1">[1]</a>
+ </p>
+ <ul class="important">
+   <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 improve the program, and release your improvements
+   <li>The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions
-       to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3).
+       to others (freedom 3).  By doing this you can give the whole
+       community a chance to benefit from your changes.
        Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
    </li>
  </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.
+ <p>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.</p>
+ <p>
+ &ldquo;Free software&rdquo; does not mean &ldquo;noncommercial&rdquo;.  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
+ <a href="/philosophy/selling.html">sell copies</a>.
  </p>
  <p>
- You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them
+ A free program must offer the four freedoms to any user that obtains a
- privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they
+ copy of the software, provided the user has complied thus far with the
- exist.  If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to
+ conditions of the free license covering the software.  Putting some of
- notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.
+ the freedoms off limits to some users, or requiring that users pay, in
+ money or in kind, to exercise them, is tantamount to not granting the
+ freedoms in question, and thus renders the program nonfree.
  </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
  overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it
  with the developer or any other specific entity.  In this freedom, it is
  the <em>user's</em> purpose that matters, not the <em>developer's</em>
- purpose; you as a user are free to run a program for your purposes,
+ purpose; you as a user are free to run the program for your purposes,
  and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it
  for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her.
  </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>
+ In order for freedoms 1 and 3 (the freedom to make changes and the
+ 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.  Obfuscated
+ &ldquo;source code&rdquo; is not real source code and does not count
+ as source code.
  </p>
  <p>
- In order for the freedoms to make changes, and to publish improved
+ Freedom 1 includes the freedom to use your changed version in place of
- versions, to be meaningful, you must have access to the source code of
+ the original.  If the program is delivered in a product designed to
- the program.  Therefore, accessibility of source code is a necessary
+ run someone else's modified versions but refuse to run yours &mdash; a
- condition for free software.
+ 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 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.
  </p>
  <p>
- One important way to modify a program is by merging in available
+ One important way to modify a program is by merging in available free
- free subroutines and modules.  If the program's license says that you
+ subroutines and modules.  If the program's license says that you
- cannot merge in an existing module, such as if it requires you to be the
+ cannot merge in a suitably licensed existing module &mdash; for instance, if it
- copyright holder of any code you add, then the license is too restrictive
+ requires you to be the copyright holder of any code you add &mdash; then the
- to qualify as free.
+ license is too restrictive to qualify as free.
  </p>
  <p>
- In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be irrevocable as
+ Whether a change constitutes an improvement is a subjective matter.
- long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the
+ If your right to modify a program is limited, in substance, to changes that
- power to revoke the license, without your doing anything to give cause,
+ someone else considers an improvement, that program is not free.
- the software 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>
- However, certain kinds of rules about the manner of distributing free
+ You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them
- software are acceptable, when they don't conflict with the central
+ privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they
- freedoms.  For example, copyleft (very simply stated) is the rule that
+ exist.  If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to
- when redistributing the program, you cannot add restrictions to deny
+ notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.
- other people the central freedoms.  This rule does not conflict with
- the central freedoms; rather it protects them.
  </p>
  <p>
- You may have paid money to get copies of free software, or you may have
+ Freedom 3 includes the freedom to release your modified versions
- obtained copies at no charge.  But regardless of how you got your copies,
+ as free software.  A free license may also permit other ways of
- you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to
+ releasing them; in other words, it does not have to be
- <a href="/philosophy/selling.html">sell copies</a>.
+ a <a href="/copyleft/copyleft.html">copyleft</a> license.  However, a
+ license that requires modified versions to be nonfree does not qualify
+ as a free license.
  </p>
  <p>
- <q>Free software</q> does not mean <q>non-commercial.</q>  A free
+ The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable
- program must be available for commercial use, commercial development,
+ forms of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and
- and commercial distribution.  Commercial development of free software
+ unmodified versions.  (Distributing programs in runnable form is necessary
- is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important.
+ 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.
  </p>
+ <h4>Copyleft</h4>
  <p>
- Rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable, if they
+ Certain kinds of rules about the manner of distributing free
- don't substantively block your freedom to release modified versions, or
+ software are acceptable, when they don't conflict with the central
- your freedom to make and use modified versions privately.  Rules that <q>if
+ freedoms.  For example, <a href="/copyleft/copyleft.html">copyleft</a>
- you make your version available in this way, you must make it available in
+ (very simply stated) is the rule that when redistributing the program,
- that way also</q> can be acceptable too, on the same condition.  (Note that
+ you cannot add restrictions to deny other people the central freedoms.
- such a rule still leaves you the choice of whether to publish your version
+ This rule does not conflict with the central freedoms; rather it
- at all.)  Rules that require release of source code to the users for
+ protects them.
- versions that you put into public use are also acceptable.  It is also
+ </p>
- acceptable for the license to require that, if you have distributed a
- modified version and a previous developer asks for a copy of it, you
+ <p>
- must send one, or that you identify yourself on your modifications.
+ In the GNU project, we use copyleft to protect the four freedoms
+ legally for everyone.  We believe there are important reasons why
+ <a href="/philosophy/pragmatic.html">it is better to use
+ copyleft</a>.  However,
+ <a href="/philosophy/categories.html#Non-CopyleftedFreeSoftware">
+ noncopylefted free software</a> is ethical
+ too.  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>
+ <h4>Rules about packaging and distribution details</h4>
  <p>
- In the GNU project, we use
+ Rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable,
- <q><a href="/copyleft/copyleft.html">copyleft</a></q>
+ if they don't substantively limit your freedom to release modified
- to protect these freedoms legally for everyone.  But
+ versions, or your freedom to make and use modified versions privately.
- <a href="/philosophy/categories.html#Non-CopyleftedFreeSoftware">non-copylefted
+ Thus, it is acceptable for the license to require that you change the
- free software</a> also exists.  We believe there are important reasons why
+ name of the modified version, remove a logo, or identify your
- <a href="/philosophy/pragmatic.html"> it is better to use copyleft</a>,
+ modifications as yours.  As long as these requirements are not so
- but if your program is non-copylefted free software, we can still
+ burdensome that they effectively hamper you from releasing your
- use it.
+ changes, they are acceptable; you're already making other changes to
+ the program, so you won't have trouble making a few more.
  </p>
  <p>
- See <a href="/philosophy/categories.html">Categories of Free Software</a>
+ Rules that &ldquo;if you make your version available in this way, you
- for a description of how <q>free software,</q> <q>copylefted software</q>
+ must make it available in that way also&rdquo; can be acceptable too,
- and other categories of software relate to each other.
+ 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.
  </p>
  <p>
+ 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.</p>
+ <h4>Export regulations</h4>
+ <p>
  Sometimes government <a id="exportcontrol">export control regulations</a>
  and trade sanctions can constrain your freedom to distribute copies of
  programs internationally.  Software developers do not have the power to
  eliminate or override these restrictions, but what they can and must do
  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.
+ jurisdictions of these governments.  Thus, free software licenses
+ must not require obedience to any nontrivial export regulations as a
+ 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 176 
 is unlikely to have some other sort of p
+Line 342 
 is unlikely to have some other sort of p
  (though this does happen occasionally).  However, some free software
  licenses are based on contracts, and contracts can impose a much larger
  range of possible restrictions.  That means there are many possible ways
- such a license could be unacceptably restrictive and non-free.
+ such a license could be unacceptably restrictive and nonfree.
  </p>
  <p>
-Line 184 
 We can't possibly list all the ways that
+Line 350 
 We can't possibly list all the ways that
  contract-based license restricts the user in an unusual way that
  copyright-based licenses cannot, and which isn't mentioned here as
  legitimate, we will have to think about it, and we will probably conclude
- it is non-free.
+ 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 <q>give away</q> or <q>for free,</q> because those terms imply that
+ like &ldquo;give away&rdquo; or &ldquo;for free,&rdquo; because those terms imply that
  the issue is about price, not freedom.  Some common terms such
- as <q>piracy</q> embody opinions we hope you won't endorse.  See
+ as &ldquo;piracy&rdquo; embody opinions we hope you won't endorse.  See
  <a href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html">Confusing Words and Phrases that
  are Worth Avoiding</a> for a discussion of these terms.  We also have
- a list of <a href="/philosophy/fs-translations.html">translations of
+ a list of proper <a href="/philosophy/fs-translations.html">translations of
- <q>free software</q></a> into various languages.
+ &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 212 
 a conclusion about a new issue, we often
+Line 382 
 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 221 
 listed there, you can ask us about it by
+Line 393 
 listed there, you can ask us about it by
  </p>
  <p>
- If you are contemplating writing a new license, please contact the FSF
+ If you are contemplating writing a new license, please contact the
- by writing to that address. The proliferation of different free software
+ Free Software Foundation first by writing to that address. The
- licenses means increased work for users in understanding the licenses;
+ proliferation of different free software licenses means increased work
- we may be able to help you find an existing Free Software license that
+ for users in understanding the licenses; we may be able to help you
- meets your needs.
+ find an existing free software license that meets your needs.
  </p>
  <p>
  If that isn't possible, if you really need a new license, with our
- help you can ensure that the license really is a Free Software license
+ help you can ensure that the license really is a free software license
  and avoid various practical problems.
  </p>
- <h2>Open Source?</h2>
+ <h3 id="beyond-software">Beyond Software</h3>
  <p>
- Another group has started using the term <q>open source</q> to mean
+ <a href="/philosophy/free-doc.html">Software manuals must be free</a>,
- something close (but not identical) to <q>free software.</q>  We prefer
+ for the same reasons that software must be free, and because the
- the term <q>free software</q> because, once you have heard it refers to
+ manuals are in effect part of the software.
- freedom rather than price, <a href="free-software-for-freedom.html">it
- calls to mind freedom</a>.  The word <q>open</q> never does that.
  </p>
- <p><a href="/philosophy/philosophy.html">Other Texts to Read</a></p>
- </div>
- <!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
- <div id="footer">
  <p>
- Please send FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
+ The same arguments also make sense for other kinds of works of
- <a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><em>gnu@gnu.org</em></a>.
+ practical use &mdash; that is to say, works that embody useful knowledge,
- There are also <a href="http://www.fsf.org/about/contact.html">other ways to contact</a>
+ such as educational works and reference
- the FSF.
+ works.  <a href="http://wikipedia.org">Wikipedia</a> is the best-known
- <br />
+ example.
- Please send broken links and other corrections (or suggestions) to
- <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><em>webmasters@gnu.org</em></a>.
  </p>
  <p>
- Please see the
+ Any kind of work <em>can</em> be free, and the definition of free software
- <a href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ has been extended to a definition of <a href="http://freedomdefined.org/">
- README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting
+ free cultural works</a> applicable to any kind of works.
- translations of this article.
  </p>
- <p>
+ <h3 id="open-source">Open Source?</h3>
- Copyright (C) 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004,
-, 2006 <br /> Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St,
- Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301,  USA
- <br />
- Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is
- permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is
- preserved.
- </p>
  <p>
- Updated:
+ Another group uses the term &ldquo;open source&rdquo; to mean
- <!-- timestamp start -->
+ something close (but not identical) to &ldquo;free software&rdquo;.  We
- $Date$ $Author$
+ prefer the term &ldquo;free software&rdquo; because, once you have heard that
- <!-- timestamp end -->
+ it refers to freedom rather than price, it calls to mind freedom.  The
+ word &ldquo;open&rdquo; <a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">
+ never refers to freedom</a>.
  </p>
  </div>
- <div id="translations">
+ <h3 id="History">History</h3>
- <h4>Translations of this page</h4>
- <!-- Please keep this list alphabetical, and in the original -->
+ <p>From time to time we revise this Free Software Definition.  Here is
- <!-- language if possible, otherwise default to English -->
+ the list of substantive changes, along with links to show exactly what
- <!-- If you do not have it English, please comment what the -->
+ was changed.</p>
- <!-- English is.  If you add a new language here, please -->
- <!-- advise web-translators@gnu.org and add it to -->
+ <ul>
- <!--    - in /home/www/bin/nightly-vars either TAGSLANG or WEBLANG -->
- <!--    - in /home/www/html/server/standards/README.translations.html -->
+ <li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.162&amp;r2=1.163">Version
- <!--      one of the lists under the section "Translations Underway" -->
+.163</a>: Clarify that the four freedoms apply to any and all users,
- <!--    - if there is a translation team, you also have to add an alias -->
+ and that requiring users to pay to exercise some of these freedoms is
- <!--      to mail.gnu.org:/com/mailer/aliases -->
+ a way of denying them.</li>
- <!-- Please also check you have the 2 letter language code right versus -->
- <!--     http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ert/iso639.htm -->
+ <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
- <ul class="translations-list">
+.153</a>: Clarify that freedom to run the program means nothing stops
-   <li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.ar.html">&#1575;&#1604;&#1593;&#1585;&#1576;&#1610;&#1577;</a> <!-- Arabic --></li>
+ you from making it run.</li>
-  <li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.bg.html">&#x431;&#x44A;&#x43B;&#x433;&#x430;&#x440;&#x441;&#x43A;&#x438;</a>  <!-- Bulgarian --></li>
-  <li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.ca.html">Catal&#x00e0;</a>    <!-- Catalan --></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>
- <!-- Chinese (Simplified) -->
-  <li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.cn.html">&#x7b80;&#x4f53;&#x4e2d;&#x6587;</a></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
- <!-- Chinese (Traditional) -->
+ as you wish.</li>
-  <li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.zh.html">&#x7e41;&#x9ad4;&#x4e2d;&#x6587;</a></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
-  <li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.cs.html">&#x010c;esky</a>     <!-- Czech --></li>
+.134</a>: Freedom 0 is not a matter of the program's functionality.</li>
-  <li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.da.html">Dansk</a>    <!-- Danish --></li>
-  <li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.de.html">Deutsch</a>  <!-- German --></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
-  <li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">English</a> </li>
+.131</a>: A free license may not require compliance with a nonfree license
-  <li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.el.html">Ελληνικά</a>  <!--Greek--></li>
+ of another program.</li>
-  <li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.es.html">Espa&#x00f1;ol</a>   <!-- Spanish --></li>
-  <li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.eo.html">Esperanto</a></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
-  <li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.fa.html">&#x0641;&#x0627;&#x0631;&#x0633;&#x06cc;</a></li>
+.129</a>: State explicitly that choice of law and choice of forum
-  <li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.fr.html">Fran&#x00e7;ais</a>  <!-- French --></li>
+ specifications are allowed.  (This was always our policy.)</li>
-  <li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.gl.html">Galego</a>   <!-- Galician --></li>
-  <li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.he.html">&#x05e2;&#x05d1;&#x05e8;&#x05d9;&#x05ea;</a> <!-- Hebrew --></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
-  <li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.hr.html">Hrvatski</a> <!-- Croatian --></li>
+.122</a>: An export control requirement is a real problem if the
-  <li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.id.html">Bahasa Indonesia</a> <!-- Indonesian --></li>
+ requirement is nontrivial; otherwise it is only a potential problem.</li>
-  <li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.it.html">Italiano</a> <!-- Italian --></li>
-  <li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.ja.html">&#x65e5;&#x672c;&#x8a9e;</a> <!-- Japanese --></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
-  <li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.ko.html">&#xd55c;&#xad6d;&#xc5b4;</a> <!-- Korean --></li>
+.118</a>: Clarification: the issue is limits on your right to modify,
-  <li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.hu.html">Magyar</a>   <!-- Hungarian --></li>
+ not on what modifications you have made.  And modifications are not limited
-  <li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.nl.html">Nederlands</a>       <!-- Dutch --></li>
+ to &ldquo;improvements&rdquo;</li>
-  <li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.no.html">Norsk</a>    <!-- Norwegian --></li>
-  <li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.pl.html">Polski</a>   <!-- Polish --></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
-  <li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.pt.html">Portugu&#x0ea;s</a>  <!-- Portuguese --></li>
+.111</a>: Clarify 1.77 by saying that only
-  <li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.ro.html">Rom&#x00e2;n&#x0103;</a>     <!-- Romanian --></li>
+ retroactive <em>restrictions</em> are unacceptable.  The copyright
-  <li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.ru.html">&#1056;&#1091;&#1089;&#1089;&#1082;&#1080;&#1081;</a> <!-- Russian --></li>
+ holders can always grant additional <em>permission</em> for use of the
-  <li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.sl.html">Slovinsko</a>        <!--- Slovenian --></li>
+ work by releasing the work in another way in parallel.</li>
-  <li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.sr.html">&#x0421;&#x0440;&#x043f;&#x0441;&#x043a;&#x0438;</a> <!-- Serbian --></li>
-  <li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.tl.html">Tagalog</a>  <!-- Tagalog --></li>
+ <li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.104&amp;r2=1.105">Version
-  <li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.tr.html">T&#x00fc;rk&#x00e7;e</a>     <!-- Turkish --></li>
+.105</a>: Reflect, in the brief statement of freedom 1, the point
+ (already stated in version 1.80) that it includes really using your modified
+ version for your computing.</li>
+ <li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.91&amp;r2=1.92">Version
+.92</a>: Clarify that obfuscated code does not qualify as source code.</li>
+ <li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.89&amp;r2=1.90">Version
+.90</a>: Clarify that freedom 3 means the right to distribute copies
+ of your own modified or improved version, not a right to participate
+ in someone else's development project.</li>
+ <li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.88&amp;r2=1.89">Version
+.89</a>: Freedom 3 includes the right to release modified versions as
+ free software.</li>
+ <li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.79&amp;r2=1.80">Version
+.80</a>: Freedom 1 must be practical, not just theoretical;
+ i.e., no tivoization.</li>
+ <li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.76&amp;r2=1.77">Version
+.77</a>: Clarify that all retroactive changes to the license are
+ unacceptable, even if it's not described as a complete
+ replacement.</li>
+ <li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.73&amp;r2=1.74">Version
+.74</a>: Four clarifications of points not explicit enough, or stated
+ in some places but not reflected everywhere:
+ <ul>
+ <li>"Improvements" does not mean the license can
+ substantively limit what kinds of modified versions you can release.
+ Freedom 3 includes distributing modified versions, not just changes.</li>
+ <li>The right to merge in existing modules
+ refers to those that are suitably licensed.</li>
+ <li>Explicitly state the conclusion of the point about export controls.</li>
+ <li>Imposing a license change constitutes revoking the old license.</li>
  </ul>
- </div>
+ </li>
+ <li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.56&amp;r2=1.57">Version
+.57</a>: Add &quot;Beyond Software&quot; section.</li>
+ <li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.45&amp;r2=1.46">Version
+.46</a>: Clarify whose purpose is significant in the freedom to run
+ the program for any purpose.</li>
+ <li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.40&amp;r2=1.41">Version
+.41</a>: Clarify wording about contract-based licenses.</li>
+ <li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.39&amp;r2=1.40">Version
+.40</a>: Explain that a free license must allow to you use other
+ available free software to create your modifications.</li>
+ <li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.38&amp;r2=1.39">Version
+.39</a>: Note that it is acceptable for a license to require you to
+ provide source for versions of the software you put into public
+ use.</li>
+ <li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.30&amp;r2=1.31">Version
+.31</a>: Note that it is acceptable for a license to require you to
+ identify yourself as the author of modifications.  Other minor
+ clarifications throughout the text.</li>
+ <li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.22&amp;r2=1.23">Version
+.23</a>: Address potential problems related to contract-based
+ licenses.</li>
+ <li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.15&amp;r2=1.16">Version
+.16</a>: Explain why distribution of binaries is important.</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 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 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 <a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;view=log">cvsweb
+ interface</a>.</p>
+ <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>Please send general 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.  Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+ to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org">&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</a>.</p>
+ <p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+         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>
+ <!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+      files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+      be under CC BY-ND 4.0.  Please do NOT change or remove this
+      without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+      Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+      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, 2009-2019
+ Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
+ <p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+ href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
+ Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p>
+ <!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+ <p class="unprintable">Updated:
+ <!-- timestamp start -->
+ $Date$
+ <!-- timestamp end -->
+ </p>
+ </div>
+ </div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
  </body>
  </html>

 Legend:



Removed from v.1.55
 


changed lines


 
Added in v.1.164
 Legend:



Removed from v.1.55
 


changed lines


 
Added in v.1.164
-Removed from v.1.55
+Added in v.1.164

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