-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. +
+ ++Have a question about free software licensing not answered here? +See our other licensing resources, +and if necessary contact the FSF Compliance Lab +at licensing@fsf.org.
+
-Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, -study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to -four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software: +“Free software” means software that respects users' +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”. 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.
-+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. +
+ ++A program is free software if the program's users have the +four essential freedoms: [1] +
+ +-A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, -you should be 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. -
+A program is free software if it gives users adequately all of these +freedoms. Otherwise, it is nonfree. While we can distinguish various +nonfree distribution schemes in terms of how far they fall short of +being free, we consider them all equally unethical. + +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 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 user's purpose that matters, not the developer's -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.
-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 run the program as you wish means that you are not +forbidden or stopped from making it run. This has nothing to do with what +functionality the program has, whether it is technically capable of +functioning in any given environment, or whether it is useful for any +particular computing activity.
+ ++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 +“source code” is not real source code and does not count +as source code.
-In order for the freedoms to make changes, and to publish improved -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. +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 “lockdown”, +or (in its practitioners' perverse terminology) as “secure +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.
One important way to modify a program is by merging in available free subroutines and modules. If the program's license says that you -cannot merge in a suitably-licensed existing module, such as if it -requires you to be the copyright holder of any code you add, then the +cannot merge in a suitably licensed existing module — for instance, if it +requires you to be the copyright holder of any code you add — then the license is too restrictive to qualify as free.
-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. +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. +
+ +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.
-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. +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 non-commercial.
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.
+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
+license that requires modified versions to be nonfree does not qualify
+as a free license.
-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. +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.
+
-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, if you have distributed a
-modified version and a previous developer asks for a copy of it, you
-must send one, or that you identify yourself on your modifications.
+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.
-In the GNU project, we use
-copyleft
-to protect these freedoms legally for everyone. But
-non-copylefted
-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.
+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.
-See Categories of Free Software
-for a description of how free software,
copylefted software
-and other categories of software relate to each other.
+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.
+ +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 @@ -173,11 +285,47 @@ 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 -any of the essential freedoms. +must not require obedience to any nontrivial export regulations as a +condition of exercising any of the essential freedoms. +
+ ++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. +
+ ++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 +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 @@ -185,7 +333,7 @@ (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.
@@ -193,20 +341,24 @@ 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.
+
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 translations of
-free software
into various languages.
+a list of proper translations of
+“free software” into various languages.
Finally, note that criteria such as those stated in this free software definition require careful thought for their interpretation. To decide @@ -221,6 +373,8 @@ it easier to see why certain licenses do or don't qualify.
+If you are interested in whether a specific license qualifies as a free software license, see our list @@ -230,20 +384,20 @@
-If you are contemplating writing a new license, please contact the FSF -by writing to that address. The proliferation of different free software -licenses means increased work for users in understanding the licenses; -we may be able to help you find an existing Free Software license that -meets your needs. +If you are contemplating writing a new license, please contact the +Free Software Foundation first by writing to that address. The +proliferation of different free software licenses means increased work +for users in understanding the licenses; we may be able to help you +find an existing free software license that meets your needs.
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.
-Software manuals must be free, @@ -255,7 +409,7 @@ 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.
@@ -265,26 +419,84 @@ 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 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
-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 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 cvsweb
interface.Footnote
+
+
+
-
-
-Translations of this page
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
+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.
- is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand -the concept, you should think of as in -not as in +“Open source” is something different: it has a very +different philosophy based on different values. Its practical +definition is different too, but nearly all open source programs are +in fact free. We explain the +difference in +Why “Open Source” misses the point of Free Software.
+