-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 +104,14 @@ 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. +don't substantively 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.
+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 @@ -195,7 +196,7 @@ 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.Updated: -$Date: 2004/11/17 00:47:22 $ $Author: chstoneliu $ +$Date: 2004/12/12 18:23:56 $ $Author: rms $