[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy categories.html
|
From: |
Richard M. Stallman |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy categories.html |
|
Date: |
Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:56:35 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /webcvs/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Richard M. Stallman <rms> 09/06/22 14:56:35
Modified files:
philosophy : categories.html
Log message:
Clarifications.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/categories.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.51&r2=1.52
Patches:
Index: categories.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /webcvs/www/www/philosophy/categories.html,v
retrieving revision 1.51
retrieving revision 1.52
diff -u -b -r1.51 -r1.52
--- categories.html 7 Jan 2009 22:11:28 -0000 1.51
+++ categories.html 22 Jun 2009 14:56:31 -0000 1.52
@@ -51,9 +51,10 @@
proprietary software companies sometimes use the term
“free software” to refer to price. Sometimes they
mean that you can obtain a binary copy at no charge; sometimes
- they mean that a copy is included on a computer that you are
- buying. This has nothing to do with what we mean by free
- software in the GNU project.</p>
+ they mean that a copy is bundled with a computer that you are
+ buying, and the price includes both. Either way, this has
+ nothing to do with what we mean by free software in the GNU
+ project.</p>
<p>Because of this potential confusion, when a software company
says its product is free software, always check the actual
@@ -127,13 +128,17 @@
<dt id="CopyleftedSoftware"><strong>Copylefted software</strong></dt>
<dd>Copylefted software is free software whose distribution
- terms ensure that all copies of all versions are free
- software. This means, for instance, that copyleft licenses
- generally disallow others to add additional requirements to
- the software (though a limited set of safe added requirements
- can be allowed) and require making source code available.
- Some copyleft licenses, such as GPL version 3, block other
- means of turning software proprietary.
+ terms ensure that all copies of all versions carry more or
+ less the same distribution terms. This means, for instance,
+ that copyleft licenses generally disallow others to add
+ additional requirements to the software (though a limited set
+ of safe added requirements can be allowed) and require making
+ source code available. This shields the program, and its
+ modified versions, from some of the common ways of making a
+ program proprietary.
+
+ <p>Some copyleft licenses, such as GPL
+ version 3, block other means of turning software proprietary.</p>
<p>In the GNU Project, we copyleft almost all the software we
write, because our goal is to give <em>every</em> user the freedoms
@@ -163,15 +168,19 @@
compile the program, with or without modifications, and distribute
the executable file as a <a href=
"#ProprietarySoftware">proprietary</a> software product.</p>
- <p>The <a href="http://www.x.org";>X Window System</a> illustrates
- this. The X Consortium releases X11 with distribution terms that
- make it non-copylefted free software. If you wish, you can get a
- copy which has those distribution terms and is free. However, there
- are non-free versions as well, and there are popular workstations
- and PC graphics boards for which non-free versions are the only
- ones that work. If you are using this hardware, X11 is not free
- software for you. <a href="/philosophy/x.html">The developers of
- X11 even made X11 non-free for a while.</a></p>
+ <p>The <a href="http://www.x.org";>X Window System</a>
+ illustrates this. The X Consortium releases X11 with
+ distribution terms that make it non-copylefted free
+ software. If you wish, you can get a copy which has those
+ distribution terms and is free. However, there are non-free
+ versions as well, and there are (or at least were) popular
+ workstations and PC graphics boards for which non-free
+ versions are the only ones that work. If you are using this
+ hardware, X11 is not free software for
+ you. <a href="/philosophy/x.html">The developers of X11 even
+ made X11 non-free</a> for a while; they were able to do this because
+ others had contributed their code under the same non-copyleft
+ license.</p>
</dd>
<dt id="GPL-CoveredSoftware"><strong>GPL-covered
@@ -179,7 +188,11 @@
<dd>The <a href="/copyleft/gpl.html">GNU GPL (General Public
License)</a> is one specific set of distribution terms for
copylefting a program. The GNU Project uses it as the distribution
- terms for most GNU software.</dd>
+ terms for most GNU software.
+
+ <p>To equate free software with GPL-covered software is therefore
+ an error.</p></dd>
+
<dt id="TheGNUsystem"><strong>The GNU system</strong></dt>
<dd>The <a href="/gnu/gnu-history.html">GNU system</a> is the
Unix-like operating system, which is entirely free software, that
@@ -336,13 +349,11 @@
it, and does not release it to the public either as source code or
as binaries.
<p>A private program is free software in a trivial sense if its
- unique user has full rights to it. However, in a deeper sense, it
- does not really make sense to pose the question of whether such a
- program is free software or not.</p>
+ unique user has full rights to it.</p>
<p>In general we do not believe it is wrong to develop a program
and not release it. There are occasions when a program is so useful
that withholding it from release is treating humanity badly.
- However, most programs are not that marvelous, and withholding them
+ However, most programs are not that important, so not releasing them
is not particularly harmful. Thus, there is no conflict between the
development of private or custom software and the principles of the
free software movement.</p>
@@ -360,19 +371,20 @@
is <a href="#ProprietarySoftware">proprietary</a>, but there
is commercial free software, and there is non-commercial
non-free software.
- <p>For example, GNU Ada is always distributed under the terms
- of the GNU GPL, and every copy is free software; but its
- developers sell support contracts. When their salesmen speak
- to prospective customers, sometimes the customers say,
- “We would feel safer with a commercial compiler.”
- The salesmen reply, “GNU Ada <em>is</em> a commercial
- compiler; it happens to be free software.”</p>
- <p>For the GNU Project, the emphasis is in the other order: the
- important thing is that GNU Ada is free software; whether it is
- commercial is not a crucial question. However, the additional
- development of GNU Ada that results from its being commercial is
- definitely beneficial.</p>
- <p>Please help spread the awareness that commercial free
+ <p>For example, GNU Ada is developed by a company. It always
+ distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL, and every copy is
+ free software; but its developers sell support contracts. When
+ their salesmen speak to prospective customers, sometimes the
+ customers say, “We would feel safer with a commercial
+ compiler.” The salesmen reply, “GNU
+ Ada <em>is</em> a commercial compiler; it happens to be free
+ software.”</p>
+ <p>For the GNU Project, the emphasis is in the other order:
+ the important thing is that GNU Ada is free software; whether
+ it is commercial is just a detail. However, the additional
+ development of GNU Ada that results from its being commercial
+ is definitely beneficial.</p>
+ <p>Please help spread the awareness that free commercial
software is possible. You can do this by making an effort not
to say “commercial” when you mean
“proprietary.”</p>
@@ -418,7 +430,7 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2009/01/07 22:11:28 $
+$Date: 2009/06/22 14:56:31 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
- www/philosophy categories.html,
Richard M. Stallman <=