++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. +
+
-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. +“Free software” means software that respects users' +freedom and community. Roughly, the users have the freedom to run, +copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. With these +freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the +program and what it does for them.
-“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.” +When users don't control the program, the program controls the users. +The developer controls the program, and through it controls the users. +This nonfree or “proprietary” program is therefore an +instrument of unjust power.
-Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, -study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it means that the -program's users have the four essential freedoms: +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”. +
+ ++A program is free software if the program's users have the +four essential freedoms:
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 (through -blacklisting) as “secure boot” — 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. +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 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.
@@ -125,9 +146,9 @@
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. +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.
@@ -140,7 +161,7 @@
-“Free software” does not mean “noncommercial.” A free +“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. @@ -157,18 +178,36 @@
-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 you identify -your modifications as yours, or that, if you have distributed a modified -version and a previous developer asks for a copy of it, you must send -one. +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. +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. +
+ ++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.
+ ++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.
@@ -272,7 +311,7 @@ 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.
@@ -286,7 +325,7 @@
Another group has started using the term “open source” to mean
-something close (but not identical) to “free software.” We
+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”
@@ -295,13 +334,23 @@
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 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 as such.
+These changes are in other parts of the page. You can review the
+complete list of changes to the page through
+the cvsweb
interface.
-Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004,
-2005, 2006, 2007, 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004,
+2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is
-permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is
-preserved.
+ This page is licensed under a Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.
Updated:
-$Date: 2010/07/01 07:48:40 $
+$Date: 2012/02/26 14:55:09 $
History
-
+
-Translations of this page
-
-
-
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
-