[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/server/staging/readability free-sw.html
|
From: |
Therese Godefroy |
|
Subject: |
www/server/staging/readability free-sw.html |
|
Date: |
Sat, 15 Oct 2016 07:50:19 +0000 (UTC) |
CVSROOT: /webcvs/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Therese Godefroy <th_g> 16/10/15 07:50:19
Added files:
server/staging/readability: free-sw.html
Log message:
Add another popular page.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/server/staging/readability/free-sw.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
Patches:
Index: free-sw.html
===================================================================
RCS file: free-sw.html
diff -N free-sw.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ free-sw.html 15 Oct 2016 07:50:19 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,605 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<link rev="made" href="mailto:address@hidden"; />
+<link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="/graphics/gnu-head-mini.png" />
+<meta name="ICBM" content="42.355469,-71.058627" />
+<meta name="DC.title" content="gnu.org" />
+<link rel="stylesheet" href="/combo.css" media="screen" />
+<link rel="stylesheet" href="/mini.css" media="handheld" />
+<link rel="stylesheet" href="layout.css" media="screen" />
+<link rel="stylesheet" href="/print.min.css" media="print" />
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<title>What is free software?
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<style type="text/css" media="print,screen"><!--
+.intro blockquote { margin: 0; }
+.note { margin: 1.5em 0 1em; }
address@hidden (min-width: 38em) {
+ .intro { text-align: justify; }
+}
address@hidden (min-width: 48em) {
+ .note { width: 32%; margin-top: .5em; }
+ .intro { width: 57%; float: left; }
+ .intro h3 { margin-top: 0; }
+}
+--></style>
+<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." />
+
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/free-sw.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+
+<h2 class="c">What is free software?</h2>
+
+<div class="intro">
+<h3>The Free Software Definition</h3>
+<blockquote>
+<p>
+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>
+</div>
+<!--#include virtual="/licenses/fsf-licensing.html" -->
+
+<div class="article">
+<p>
+“Free software” means software that respects users'
+freedom and community. Roughly, it means that <b>the users have the
+freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the
+software</b>. 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”. We sometimes call it “libre
+software,” borrowing the French or Spanish word for
+“free” as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software
+is gratis.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+We campaign for these freedoms because everyone deserves them. With
+these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control
+the program and what it does for them. When users don't control the
+program, we call it a “nonfree” or
+“proprietary” 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>
+A program is free software if the program's users have the
+four essential freedoms:
+</p>
+
+<ul>
+ <li>The freedom to run the program as you wish,
+ for any purpose (freedom 0).</li>
+ <li>The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it
+ 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>
+ <li>The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions
+ 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 it gives users adequately all of these
+freedoms. Otherwise, it is nonfree. While we can distinguish various
+nonfree distribution schemes in terms of how far they fall short of
+being free, we consider them all equally unethical.</p>
+
+<p>In any given scenario, these freedoms must apply to whatever code
+we plan to make use of, or lead others to make use of. For instance,
+consider a program A which automatically launches a program B to
+handle some cases. If we plan to distribute A as it stands, that
+implies users will need B, so we need to judge whether both A and B
+are free. However, if we plan to modify A so that it doesn't use B,
+only A needs to be free; B is not pertinent to that plan.</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>
+
+<p>
+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 of
+overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it
+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 run the program as you wish means that you are not
+forbidden or stopped from doing so. It has nothing to do with what
+functionality the program has, or whether it is useful for what you
+want to do.</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 necessary
+for conveniently installable free operating systems.) It is OK if there
+is no way to produce a binary or executable form for a certain program
+(since some languages don't support that feature), but you must have the
+freedom to redistribute such forms should you find or develop a way to
+make them.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+In order for freedoms 1 and 3 (the freedom to make changes and the
+freedom to publish the changed versions) to be meaningful, you must have
+access to the source code of the program. Therefore, accessibility of
+source code is a necessary condition for free software. Obfuscated
+“source code” is not real source code and does not count
+as source code.
+</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 — a
+practice known as “tivoization” or “lockdown”,
+or (in its practitioners' perverse terminology) as “secure
+boot” — freedom 1 becomes an empty pretense rather than a
+practical reality. 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 — for instance, if it
+requires you to be the copyright holder of any code you add — 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, <a href="/copyleft/copyleft.html">copyleft</a>
+(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>
+
+<p>
+In the GNU project, we use copyleft to protect the four freedoms
+legally for everyone. We believe there are important reasons why
+<a href="/philosophy/pragmatic.html">it is better to use
+copyleft</a>. However,
+<a href="/philosophy/categories.html#Non-CopyleftedFreeSoftware">
+noncopylefted free software</a> is ethical
+too. 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>
+“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.
+You may have paid money to get copies of free software, or you may have
+obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies,
+you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to
+<a href="/philosophy/selling.html">sell copies</a>.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Whether a change constitutes an improvement is a subjective matter.
+If your right to modify a program is limited, in substance, to changes that
+someone else considers an improvement, that program is not free.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+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.</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. Thus, free software licenses
+must not require obedience to any nontrivial export regulations as a
+condition of exercising any of the essential freedoms.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Merely mentioning the existence of export regulations, without making
+them a condition of the license itself, is acceptable since it does
+not restrict users. If an export regulation is actually trivial for
+free software, then requiring it as a condition is not an actual
+problem; however, it is a potential problem, since a later change in
+export law could make the requirement nontrivial and thus render the
+software nonfree.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+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 “all the programs you use”, 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>
+It is acceptable for a free license to specify which jurisdiction's
+law applies, or where litigation must be done, or both.
+</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 nonfree.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+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 nonfree.
+</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 proper <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
+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:address@hidden";><address@hidden></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 — 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 uses the term “open source” to mean
+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” <a
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">
+never refers to freedom</a>.
+</p>
+</div>
+
+<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&r1=1.140&r2=1.141";>Version
+1.141</a>: Clarify which code needs to be free.</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.134&r2=1.135";>Version
+1.135</a>: Say each time that freedom 0 is the freedom to run the program
+as you wish.</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.133&r2=1.134";>Version
+1.134</a>: Freedom 0 is not a matter of the program's functionality.</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.130&r2=1.131";>Version
+1.131</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&r1=1.128&r2=1.129";>Version
+1.129</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&r1=1.121&r2=1.122";>Version
+1.122</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&r1=1.117&r2=1.118";>Version
+1.118</a>: Clarification: the issue is limits on your right to modify,
+not on what modifications you have made. And modifications are not limited
+to “improvements”</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.110&r2=1.111";>Version
+1.111</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&r1=1.104&r2=1.105";>Version
+1.105</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&r1=1.91&r2=1.92";>Version
+1.92</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&r1=1.89&r2=1.90";>Version
+1.90</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&r1=1.88&r2=1.89";>Version
+1.89</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&r1=1.79&r2=1.80";>Version
+1.80</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&r1=1.76&r2=1.77";>Version
+1.77</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&r1=1.73&r2=1.74";>Version
+1.74</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&r1=1.56&r2=1.57";>Version
+1.57</a>: Add "Beyond Software" section.</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.45&r2=1.46";>Version
+1.46</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&r1=1.40&r2=1.41";>Version
+1.41</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&r1=1.39&r2=1.40";>Version
+1.40</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&r1=1.38&r2=1.39";>Version
+1.39</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&r1=1.30&r2=1.31";>Version
+1.31</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&r1=1.22&r2=1.23";>Version
+1.23</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&r1=1.15&r2=1.16";>Version
+1.16</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&r1=1.10&r2=1.11";>Version
+1.11</a>: Note that a free license may require you to send a copy of
+versions you distribute to previous developers on request.</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&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 & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></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:address@hidden";><address@hidden></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:address@hidden";>
+ <address@hidden></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 4.0. 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 © 1996, 2002, 2004-2007, 2009-2016
+Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/";>Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2016/10/15 07:50:19 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
- www/server/staging/readability free-sw.html,
Therese Godefroy <=