+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 @@ -104,14 +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 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, -or that you identify yourself on your modifications.
+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 @@ -143,11 +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 @@ -259,6 +269,7 @@ | Русский | Slovinsko | Српски +| Tagalog | Türkçe ]
@@ -288,8 +299,8 @@
Copyright (C) 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 Free
-Software Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA
-02111, USA
+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
@@ -299,7 +310,7 @@
Updated: -$Date: 2005/04/26 18:32:30 $ $Author: alex_muntada $ +$Date: 2005/11/26 13:16:40 $ $Author: rms $