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

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

Parent Directory | Revision Log | View Patch Patch

-revision 1.32 by alex_muntada,
Tue Jan 25 02:46:09 2005 UTC
+revision 1.133 by ineiev,
Sat Apr 12 12:40:01 2014 UTC
 Line 1
- <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
+ <!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
- <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ <!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
-     "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
+ <title>What is free software?
- <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en">
+ - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
- <head>
- <title>The Free Software Definition - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)</title>
- <meta http-equiv="content-type" content='text/html; charset=utf-8' />
- <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/gnu.css" />
- <link rev="made" href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org" />
- </head>
- <!-- This document is in XML, and xhtml 1.0 -->
- <!-- Please make sure to properly nest your tags -->
- <!-- and ensure that your final document validates -->
- <!-- consistent with W3C xhtml 1.0 and CSS standards -->
- <!-- See validator.w3.org -->
- <body>
+ <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." />
- <p><a href="#translations">Translations</a> of this page</p>
+ <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/free-sw.translist" -->
+ <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+ <h2>What is free software?</h2>
  <h3>The Free Software Definition</h3>
+ <blockquote>
  <p>
- <a href="/graphics/philosophicalgnu.html"><img src="/graphics/philosophical-gnu-sm.jpg" alt=" [image of a Philosophical Gnu] " width="160" height="200" /></a>
+ 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>
+ </blockquote>
  <p>
- We maintain this free software definition to show clearly what must be
+ &ldquo;Free software&rdquo; means software that respects users'
- true about a particular software program for it to be considered
+ freedom and community.  Roughly, it means that <b>the users have the
- free software.</p>
+ 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;.
+ </p>
  <p>
- ``Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price.  To understand the
+ We campaign for these freedoms because everyone deserves them.  With
- concept, you should think of ``free'' as in ``free speech,'' not as in
+ these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control
- ``free beer.''</p>
+ the program and what it does for them.  When users don't control the
+ 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>
  <p>
- Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy,
+ A program is free software if the program's users have the
- distribute, study, change and improve the software.  More precisely,
+ four essential freedoms:
- it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:</p>
+ </p>
  <ul>
    <li>The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).</li>
-   <li>The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
+   <li>The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it
-       (freedom 1).   Access to the source code is a precondition for this.</li>
+       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
-       (freedom 2).</li>
+       (freedom 2).
-   <li>The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements
+   </li>
-      to the public, so that the whole community benefits
+   <li>The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions
-       (freedom 3).   Access to the source code is a precondition for this.</li>
+       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.
+ A program is free software if it gives users adequately all of these
- Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or
+ freedoms.  Otherwise, it is nonfree.  While we can distinguish various
- without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for
+ nonfree distribution schemes in terms of how far they fall short of
- distribution, to <a href="#exportcontrol">anyone anywhere</a>.  Being
+ being free, we consider them all equally unethical.</p>
- free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not
- have to ask or pay for permission.</p>
+ <p>The rest of this page clarifies certain points about what makes
+ specific freedoms adequate or not.</p>
+ <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>
  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.</p>
+ notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.
+ </p>
  <p>
- The freedom to use a program means the freedom for any kind of person
+ 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
+ or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of
- of overall job, and without being required to communicate subsequently
+ overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it
- with the developer or any other specific entity.</p>
+ 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 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
  forms of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and
- unmodified versions.  (Distributing programs in runnable form is
+ unmodified versions.  (Distributing programs in runnable form is necessary
- necessary for conveniently installable free operating systems.)  It is
+ for conveniently installable free operating systems.)  It is OK if there
- ok if there is no way to produce a binary or executable form for a
+ is no way to produce a binary or executable form for a certain program
- certain program (since some languages don't support that feature), but
+ (since some languages don't support that feature), but you must have the
- you must have the freedom to redistribute such forms should you find
+ freedom to redistribute such forms should you find or develop a way to
- or develop a way to make them.</p>
+ make them.
- <p>
+ </p>
- 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
+ <p>
- the program.  Therefore, accessibility of source code is a necessary
+ In order for freedoms 1 and 3 (the freedom to make changes and the
- condition for free software.</p>
+ freedom to publish the changed versions) to be meaningful, you must have
- <p>
+ access to the source code of the program.  Therefore, accessibility of
- In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be irrevocable as
+ source code is a necessary condition for free software.  Obfuscated
- long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the
+ &ldquo;source code&rdquo; is not real source code and does not count
- power to revoke the license, without your doing anything to give
+ as source code.
- cause, the software is not free.</p>
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ 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 &mdash; a
+ 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 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.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ 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 &mdash; for instance, if it
+ requires you to be the copyright holder of any code you add &mdash; then the
+ license is too restrictive to qualify as free.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ 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 <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>
+ 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>
  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.</p>
+ the central freedoms; rather it protects them.
+ </p>
  <p>
- You may have paid money to get copies of free software, or you
+ In the GNU project, we use <a href="/copyleft/copyleft.html">
- may have obtained copies at no charge.  But regardless of how you got
+ copyleft </a> to protect the four freedoms legally for everyone.  We
- your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the
+ believe there are important reasons why
- software, even to <a href="/philosophy/selling.html">sell copies</a>.</p>
+ <a href="/philosophy/pragmatic.html">it is better to use
- <p>
+ copyleft</a>.  However,
- ``Free software'' does not mean ``non-commercial''.  A free program
+ <a href="/philosophy/categories.html#Non-CopyleftedFreeSoftware">
- must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and
+ noncopylefted free software</a> is ethical
- commercial distribution.  Commercial development of free software is
+ too.  See <a href="/philosophy/categories.html">Categories of Free
- no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important.</p>
+ Software</a> for a description of how &ldquo;free software,&rdquo;
- <p>
+ &ldquo;copylefted software&rdquo; and other categories of software
- Rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable, if they
+ relate to each other.
- don't substantively block your freedom to release modified versions.
+ </p>
- 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,
- or that you identify yourself on your modifications.</p>
- <p>
- In the GNU project, we use <a href="/copyleft/copyleft.html">``copyleft''</a>
- to protect these freedoms legally for everyone.  But
- <a href="/philosophy/categories.html#Non-CopyleftedFreeSoftware">non-copylefted
- free software</a> also exists.  We believe there are
- important reasons why <a href="/philosophy/pragmatic.html"> it is
- better to use copyleft</a>, but if your program is non-copylefted free
- software, we can still use it.</p>
- <p>
- See <a href="/philosophy/categories.html">Categories of Free Software</a>
- for a description of how ``free software,'' ``copylefted software'' and
- other categories of software relate to each other.</p>
- <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.</p>
- <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 is unlikely to have some other sort of problem that we never
- anticipated (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.</p>
- <p>
- 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.</p>
- <p>
- When talking about free software, it is best to avoid using terms 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
- <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 "free software"</a> into various languages.</p>
  <p>
- Finally, note that criteria such as those stated in this free software
+ &ldquo;Free software&rdquo; does not mean &ldquo;noncommercial&rdquo;.  A free
- definition require careful thought for their interpretation.  To
+ program must be available for commercial use, commercial development,
- decide whether a specific software license qualifies as a free
+ and commercial distribution.  Commercial development of free software
- software license, we judge it based on these criteria to determine
+ is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important.
- whether it fits their spirit as well as the precise words.  If a
+ You may have paid money to get copies of free software, or you may have
- license includes unconscionable restrictions, we reject it, even if we
+ obtained copies at no charge.  But regardless of how you got your copies,
- did not anticipate the issue in these criteria.  Sometimes a license
+ you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to
- requirement raises an issue that calls for extensive thought,
+ <a href="/philosophy/selling.html">sell copies</a>.
- including discussions with a lawyer, before we can decide if the
- requirement is acceptable.  When we reach a conclusion about a new
- issue, we often update these criteria to make it easier to see why
- certain licenses do or don't qualify.</p>
- <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 of licenses</a>.  If the
- license you are concerned with is not listed there, you can ask us
- about it by sending us email at <a
- href="mailto:licensing@gnu.org">&lt;licensing@gnu.org&gt;</a>.</p> <p>
- 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.
  </p>
  <p>
- If that isn't possible, if you really need a new license, with our
+ Whether a change constitutes an improvement is a subjective matter.
- help you can ensure that the license really is a Free Software license
+ If your right to modify a program is limited, in substance, to changes that
- and avoid various practical problems.
+ someone else considers an improvement, that program is not free.
  </p>
- <hr />
  <p>
- Another group has started using the term "open source" to mean
+ However, rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable,
- something close (but not identical) to "free software".  We prefer the
+ if they don't substantively limit your freedom to release modified
- term "free software" because, once you have heard it refers to freedom
+ versions, or your freedom to make and use modified versions privately.
- rather than price, <a href="free-software-for-freedom.html">it calls
+ Thus, it is acceptable for the license to require that you change the
- to mind freedom</a>.  The word "open" never does that.</p>
+ name of the modified version, remove a logo, or identify your
+ modifications as yours.  As long as these requirements are not so
- <hr />
+ burdensome that they effectively hamper you from releasing your
- <h4><a href="/philosophy/philosophy.html">Other Texts to Read</a></h4>
+ changes, they are acceptable; you're already making other changes to
+ the program, so you won't have trouble making a few more.
+ </p>
- <!-- All pages on the GNU web server should have the section about    -->
- <!-- verbatim copying.  Please do NOT remove this without talking     -->
+ <p>
- <!-- with the webmasters first. -->
+ Rules that &ldquo;if you make your version available in this way, you
- <!-- Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the document -->
+ must make it available in that way also&rdquo; can be acceptable too,
- <!-- and that it is like this "2001, 2002" not this "2001-2002." -->
+ on the same condition.  An example of such an acceptable rule is one
+ saying that if you have distributed a
- <div class="translations">
+ modified version and a previous developer asks for a copy of it, you
- <p><a id="translations"></a>
+ must send one.  (Note that such a rule still leaves you the choice of
- <b>Translations of this page</b>:<br />
+ 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
- <!-- Please keep this list alphabetical, and in the original -->
+ are also acceptable.
- <!-- language if possible, otherwise default to English -->
+ </p>
- <!-- If you do not have it English, please comment what the -->
- <!-- English is.  If you add a new language here, please -->
+ <p>
- <!-- advise web-trans@gnu.org and add it to -->
+ A special issue arises when a license requires changing the name by
- <!--    - in /home/www/bin/nightly-vars either TAGSLANG or WEBLANG -->
+ which the program will be invoked from other programs.  That
- <!--    - in /home/www/html/server/standards/README.translations.html -->
+ effectively hampers you from releasing your changed version so that it
- <!--      one of the lists under the section "Translations Underway" -->
+ can replace the original when invoked by those other programs.  This
- <!--    - if there is a translation team, you also have to add an alias -->
+ sort of requirement is acceptable only if there's a suitable aliasing
- <!--      to mail.gnu.org:/com/mailer/aliases -->
+ facility that allows you to specify the original program's name as an
- <!-- Please also check you have the 2 letter language code right versus -->
+ alias for the modified version.</p>
- <!--     http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ert/iso639.htm -->
- [
+ <p>
-   <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.ca.html">Catal&#x00e0;</a>       <!-- Catalan -->
+ Sometimes government <a id="exportcontrol">export control regulations</a>
+ and trade sanctions can constrain your freedom to distribute copies of
- <!-- Chinese (Simplified) -->
+ programs internationally.  Software developers do not have the power to
- | <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.cn.html">&#x7b80;&#x4f53;&#x4e2d;&#x6587;</a>
+ 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
- <!-- Chinese (Traditional) -->
+ way, the restrictions will not affect activities and people outside the
- | <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.zh.html">&#x7e41;&#x9ad4;&#x4e2d;&#x6587;</a>
+ jurisdictions of these governments.  Thus, free software licenses
+ must not require obedience to any nontrivial export regulations as a
- | <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.cs.html">&#x010c;esky</a>        <!-- Czech -->
+ condition of exercising any of the essential freedoms.
- | <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.da.html">Dansk</a>       <!-- Danish -->
+ </p>
- | <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.de.html">Deutsch</a>     <!-- German -->
- | <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">English</a>
+ <p>
- | <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.es.html">Espa&#x00f1;ol</a>      <!-- Spanish -->
+ Merely mentioning the existence of export regulations, without making
- | <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.fr.html">Fran&#x00e7;ais</a>     <!-- French -->
+ them a condition of the license itself, is acceptable since it does
- | <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.gl.html">Galego</a>      <!-- Galician -->
+ not restrict users.  If an export regulation is actually trivial for
- | <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.he.html">&#x05e2;&#x05d1;&#x05e8;&#x05d9;&#x05ea;</a>    <!-- Hebrew -->
+ free software, then requiring it as a condition is not an actual
- | <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.hr.html">Hrvatski</a>    <!-- Croatian -->
+ problem; however, it is a potential problem, since a later change in
- | <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.id.html">Bahasa Indonesia</a>    <!-- Indonesian -->
+ export law could make the requirement nontrivial and thus render the
- | <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.it.html">Italiano</a>    <!-- Italian -->
+ software nonfree.
- | <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.ja.html">&#x65e5;&#x672c;&#x8a9e;</a>    <!-- Japanese -->
- | <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.ko.html">&#xd55c;&#xad6d;&#xc5b4;</a>    <!-- Korean -->
- | <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.hu.html">Magyar</a>      <!-- Hungarian -->
- | <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.nl.html">Nederlands</a>  <!-- Dutch -->
- | <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.no.html">Norsk</a>       <!-- Norwegian -->
- | <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.pl.html">Polski</a>      <!-- Polish -->
- | <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.pt.html">Portugu&#x0ea;s</a>     <!-- Portuguese -->
- | <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.ro.html">Rom&#x00e2;n&#x00e3;</a>        <!-- Romanian -->
- | <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.ru.html">&#1056;&#1091;&#1089;&#1089;&#1082;&#1080;&#1081;</a> <!-- Russian -->
- | <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.sl.html">Slovinsko</a>   <!--- Slovenian -->
- | <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.tr.html">T&#x00fc;rk&#x00e7;e</a>        <!-- Turkish -->
- ]
  </p>
- </div>
- <div class="copyright">
  <p>
- Return to the <a href="/home.html">GNU Project home page</a>.
+ 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>
- Please send FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
+ It is acceptable for a free license to specify which jurisdiction's
- <a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><em>gnu@gnu.org</em></a>.
+ law applies, or where litigation must be done, or both.
- There are also <a href="/home.html#ContactInfo">other ways to contact</a>
- the FSF.
- <br />
- 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
+ Most free software licenses are based on copyright, and there are limits
- <a href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ on what kinds of requirements can be imposed through copyright.  If a
- README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting
+ copyright-based license respects freedom in the ways described above, it
- translations of this article.
+ is unlikely to have some other sort of problem that we never anticipated
+ (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 nonfree.
  </p>
  <p>
- Copyright (C) 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 Free
+ We can't possibly list all the ways that might happen.  If a
- Software Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA
+ contract-based license restricts the user in an unusual way that
-,  USA
+ copyright-based licenses cannot, and which isn't mentioned here as
- <br />
+ legitimate, we will have to think about it, and we will probably conclude
- Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is
+ it is nonfree.
- permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is
- preserved.
  </p>
  <p>
- Updated:
+ When talking about free software, it is best to avoid using terms
+ 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 &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 proper <a href="/philosophy/fs-translations.html">translations of
+ &ldquo;free software&rdquo;</a> into various languages.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ Finally, note that criteria such as those stated in this free software
+ definition require careful thought for their interpretation.  To decide
+ whether a specific software license qualifies as a free software license,
+ we judge it based on these criteria to determine whether it fits their
+ spirit as well as the precise words.  If a license includes unconscionable
+ restrictions, we reject it, even if we did not anticipate the issue
+ in these criteria.  Sometimes a license requirement raises an issue
+ that calls for extensive thought, including discussions with a lawyer,
+ before we can decide if the requirement is acceptable.  When we reach
+ a conclusion about a new issue, we often update these criteria to make
+ it easier to see why certain licenses do or don't qualify.
+ </p>
+ <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
+ of licenses</a>.  If the license you are concerned with is not
+ listed there, you can ask us about it by sending us email at
+ <a href="mailto:licensing@gnu.org">&lt;licensing@gnu.org&gt;</a>.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ 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.
+ </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
+ and avoid various practical problems.
+ </p>
+ <h3 id="beyond-software">Beyond Software</h3>
+ <p>
+ <a href="/philosophy/free-doc.html">Software manuals must be free</a>,
+ for the same reasons that software must be free, and because the
+ manuals are in effect part of the software.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ The same arguments also make sense for other kinds of works of
+ practical use &mdash; that is to say, works that embody useful knowledge,
+ such as educational works and reference
+ works.  <a href="http://wikipedia.org">Wikipedia</a> is the best-known
+ example.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ Any kind of work <em>can</em> be free, and the definition of free software
+ has been extended to a definition of <a href="http://freedomdefined.org/">
+ free cultural works</a> applicable to any kind of works.
+ </p>
+ <h3 id="open-source">Open Source?</h3>
+ <p>
+ Another group has started using the term &ldquo;open source&rdquo; to mean
+ something close (but not identical) to &ldquo;free software&rdquo;.  We
+ prefer the term &ldquo;free software&rdquo; because, once you have heard that
+ 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>
+ <h3 id="History">History</h3>
+ <p>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.</p>
+ <ul>
+ <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
+.131</a>: A free license may not require compliance with a nonfree license
+ of another program.</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
+.129</a>: State explicitly that choice of law and choice of forum
+ specifications are allowed.  (This was always our policy.)</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
+.122</a>: An export control requirement is a real problem if the
+ requirement is nontrivial; otherwise it is only a potential problem.</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
+.118</a>: Clarification: the issue is limits on your right to modify,
+ not on what modifications you have made.  And modifications are not limited
+ to &ldquo;improvements&rdquo;</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
+.111</a>: Clarify 1.77 by saying that only
+ retroactive <em>restrictions</em> are unacceptable.  The copyright
+ holders can always grant additional <em>permission</em> for use of the
+ work by releasing the work in another way in parallel.</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
+.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>
+ </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 the author.</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>
+ </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 3.0 US.  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, 2010, 2012, 2013
+ Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
+ <p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+ href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative
+ Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.</p>
+ <!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+ <p class="unprintable">Updated:
  <!-- timestamp start -->
- $Date$ $Author$
+ $Date$
  <!-- timestamp end -->
  </p>
  </div>
+ </div>
  </body>
  </html>

 Legend:



Removed from v.1.32
 


changed lines


 
Added in v.1.133
 Legend:



Removed from v.1.32
 


changed lines


 
Added in v.1.133
-Removed from v.1.32
+Added in v.1.133

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