www/philosophy words-to-avoid.html

[Richard M. Stallman]

CVSROOT:        /web/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     Richard M. Stallman <rms>       15/07/16 14:26:06

Modified files:
        philosophy     : words-to-avoid.html 

Log message:
        (Access): New item.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.209&r2=1.210

Patches:
Index: words-to-avoid.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html,v
retrieving revision 1.209
retrieving revision 1.210
diff -u -b -r1.209 -r1.210
--- words-to-avoid.html 22 Jun 2015 07:18:27 -0000      1.209
+++ words-to-avoid.html 16 Jul 2015 14:26:05 -0000      1.210
@@ -22,6 +22,8 @@
 <p>
   <a href="/philosophy/philosophy.html">Other Texts to Read</a>
 |<span class="gnun-split"></span> &ldquo;<a
+       href="#Access">Access</a>&rdquo;
+|<span class="gnun-split"></span> &ldquo;<a
        href="#Alternative">Alternative</a>&rdquo;
 |<span class="gnun-split"></span> &ldquo;<a
        href="#BSD-style">BSD-style</a>&rdquo;
@@ -119,6 +121,37 @@
        href="#Vendor">Vendor</a>&rdquo;
 </p>
 
+<h3 id="Access">&ldquo;Access&rdquo;</h3>
+<p>
+It is a common misunderstanding to think free software means that the
+public has &ldquo;access&rdquo; to a program.  That is not what free
+software means.</p>
+<p>
+The <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">criterion for free software</a>
+is not about who has &ldquo;access&rdquo; to the program; the four
+essential freedoms concern what a user that has a copy of the program
+can do with it.  For instance, freedom 2 says that that user is free
+to make another copy and give or sell it to you.  But no user
+is <em>obligated</em> to do that for you; you do not have
+a <em>right</em> to demand a copy of that program from any user.</p>
+<p>
+In particular, if you write a program yourself and never offer a copy
+to anyone else, that program is free software (in a trivial way)
+because you (the sole user that has it) have the four essential
+freedoms.</p>
+<p>
+In practice, when many users have copies of a program, someone is sure
+to post it on the internet, giving everyone access to it.  We think
+people ought to do that, if the program is useful.  But this isn't a
+requirement of free software.</p>
+<p>
+There is one specific point in which a question of having access is
+directly pertinent to free software: the GNU GPL permits giving a
+particular user access to download a program's source code as a
+substitute for physically giving that user a copy of the source.  This
+applies to the special case in which the user already has a copy of
+the program in non-source form.</p>
+
 <h3 id="Alternative">&ldquo;Alternative&rdquo;</h3>
 <p>
 We don't describe free software as an &ldquo;alternative&rdquo; to
@@ -126,7 +159,6 @@
 legitimate and each additional one makes users better off.  In effect,
 it assumes that free software ought to coexist with software that does
 not respect users' freedom.</p>
-
 <p>
 We believe that distribution as free software is the only ethical way
 to make software available for others to use.  The other methods,
@@ -1074,7 +1106,7 @@
 
 <p class="unprintable">Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2015/06/22 07:18:27 $
+$Date: 2015/07/16 14:26:05 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>