+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 an existing module, such as 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 irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the power to revoke the license, without your doing anything to give @@ -93,7 +99,7 @@ other people the central freedoms. This rule does not conflict with the central freedoms; rather it protects them.
-Thus, you may have paid money to get copies of free software, or you +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.
@@ -104,13 +110,18 @@ no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important.Rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable, if they -don't effectively block your freedom to release modified versions. -Rules that ``if you make the program 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 the program or not.) 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.
+don't substantively block 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. +In the GNU project, we use ``copyleft'' to protect these freedoms legally for everyone. But @@ -142,11 +153,11 @@ are many possible ways such a license could be unacceptably restrictive and non-free.
-We can't possibly list all the possible contract restrictions that -would be unacceptable. If a 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 decide it is non-free.
+We can't possibly list all the ways that might happen. If a +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.When talking about free software, it is best to avoid using terms like ``give away'' or ``for free'', because those terms imply that the @@ -171,12 +182,23 @@ 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 -of licenses. If the +free software license, see our list of licenses. If the license you are concerned with is not listed there, you can ask us -about it by sending us email -at <licensing@gnu.org>.
+about it by sending us email at <licensing@gnu.org>.+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 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 +and avoid various practical problems. +
@@ -184,7 +206,7 @@ something close (but not identical) to "free software". We prefer the term "free software" because, once you have heard it refers to freedom rather than price, it calls -to mind freedom.
+to mind freedom. The word "open" never does that.
-Copyright (C) 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, Free
-Software Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA
-02111, USA
+Copyright (C) 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 Free
+Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA
+02110, USA
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is
permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is
@@ -274,7 +313,7 @@
Updated: -$Date: 2004/07/02 00:36:09 $ $Author: canderson $ +$Date: 2006/05/20 09:35:17 $ $Author: hicham $