[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy free-sw.lt.html free-sw.pl.html ...
|
From: |
GNUN |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy free-sw.lt.html free-sw.pl.html ... |
|
Date: |
Wed, 19 Oct 2016 14:57:36 +0000 (UTC) |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: GNUN <gnun> 16/10/19 14:57:36
Modified files:
philosophy : free-sw.lt.html free-sw.pl.html free-sw.uk.html
philosophy/po : free-sw.pl-diff.html
Added files:
philosophy/po : free-sw.lt-diff.html free-sw.uk-diff.html
Log message:
Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/free-sw.lt.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.8&r2=1.9
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/free-sw.pl.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.112&r2=1.113
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/free-sw.uk.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.21&r2=1.22
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/free-sw.pl-diff.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.2&r2=1.3
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/free-sw.lt-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/free-sw.uk-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
Patches:
Index: free-sw.lt.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/free-sw.lt.html,v
retrieving revision 1.8
retrieving revision 1.9
diff -u -b -r1.8 -r1.9
--- free-sw.lt.html 26 Jan 2016 06:35:16 -0000 1.8
+++ free-sw.lt.html 19 Oct 2016 14:57:35 -0000 1.9
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/free-sw.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/free-sw.lt.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/free-sw.lt.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/free-sw.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/free-sw.lt-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2016-08-20" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/free-sw.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.lt.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -16,6 +21,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/free-sw.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.lt.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.lt.html" -->
<h2>Kas yra laisva programinÄ Ä¯ranga?</h2>
<!--#include virtual="/licenses/fsf-licensing.lt.html" -->
@@ -649,7 +655,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Atnaujinta:
-$Date: 2016/01/26 06:35:16 $
+$Date: 2016/10/19 14:57:35 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: free-sw.pl.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/free-sw.pl.html,v
retrieving revision 1.112
retrieving revision 1.113
diff -u -b -r1.112 -r1.113
--- free-sw.pl.html 30 Jan 2016 03:59:04 -0000 1.112
+++ free-sw.pl.html 19 Oct 2016 14:57:35 -0000 1.113
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/free-sw.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/free-sw.pl.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/free-sw.pl.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/free-sw.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/free-sw.pl-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2016-08-20" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/free-sw.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.pl.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -14,6 +19,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/free-sw.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.pl.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.pl.html" -->
<h2>Co to wolne oprogramowanie?</h2>
<!--#include virtual="/licenses/fsf-licensing.pl.html" -->
@@ -649,7 +655,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Aktualizowane:
-$Date: 2016/01/30 03:59:04 $
+$Date: 2016/10/19 14:57:35 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: free-sw.uk.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/free-sw.uk.html,v
retrieving revision 1.21
retrieving revision 1.22
diff -u -b -r1.21 -r1.22
--- free-sw.uk.html 2 Jan 2016 08:30:38 -0000 1.21
+++ free-sw.uk.html 19 Oct 2016 14:57:35 -0000 1.22
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/free-sw.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/free-sw.uk.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/free-sw.uk.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/free-sw.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/free-sw.uk-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2016-08-20" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/free-sw.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.uk.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -15,6 +20,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/free-sw.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.uk.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.uk.html" -->
<h2>Що Ñаке вÑлÑна пÑогÑама?</h2>
<!--#include virtual="/licenses/fsf-licensing.uk.html" -->
@@ -603,7 +609,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Ðновлено:
-$Date: 2016/01/02 08:30:38 $
+$Date: 2016/10/19 14:57:35 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: po/free-sw.pl-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/free-sw.pl-diff.html,v
retrieving revision 1.2
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -b -r1.2 -r1.3
--- po/free-sw.pl-diff.html 31 Oct 2015 20:59:48 -0000 1.2
+++ po/free-sw.pl-diff.html 19 Oct 2016 14:57:36 -0000 1.3
@@ -45,7 +45,10 @@
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” to show we do not mean it is gratis.
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>software”</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>software,” borrowing the French or
Spanish word for
+“free” as in freedom,</em></ins></span> to show we do not mean
<span class="removed"><del><strong>it</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>the software</em></ins></span>
+is gratis.
</p>
<p>
@@ -87,13 +90,13 @@
nonfree distribution schemes in terms of how far they fall short of
being free, we consider them all equally unethical.</p>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p>In any given scenario, these freedoms
must apply to whatever code
+<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; we can ignore B.</p></em></ins></span>
+only A needs to be free; <span class="removed"><del><strong>we can ignore
B.</p></strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>B is not
pertinent to that plan.</p></em></ins></span>
<p>The rest of this page clarifies certain points about what makes
specific freedoms adequate or not.</p>
@@ -386,7 +389,7 @@
<h3 id="open-source">Open Source?</h3>
<p>
-Another group has started using the term “open source” to mean
+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
@@ -402,10 +405,10 @@
<ul>
-<li><a <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.140&r2=1.141">Version
+<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</em></ins></span>
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.134&r2=1.135">Version
+<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>
@@ -508,7 +511,7 @@
<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 the author.</li>
+versions you distribute to <span class="removed"><del><strong>the
author.</li></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>previous developers on
request.</li></em></ins></span>
</ul>
@@ -553,7 +556,7 @@
<!-- 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 <span class="removed"><del><strong>3.0
US.</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>4.0.</em></ins></span> Please do NOT change or
remove this
+ 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
@@ -568,19 +571,18 @@
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, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2015
+<p>Copyright © 1996, 2002, 2004-2007, 2009-2016
Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
-<span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative</strong></del></span>
-<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative</em></ins></span>
-Commons <span class="removed"><del><strong>Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United
States</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0
International</em></ins></span> License</a>.</p>
+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: 2015/10/31 20:59:48 $
+$Date: 2016/10/19 14:57:36 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
Index: po/free-sw.lt-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/free-sw.lt-diff.html
diff -N po/free-sw.lt-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/free-sw.lt-diff.html 19 Oct 2016 14:57:36 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,592 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<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" />
+<title>/philosophy/free-sw.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<title>What is free software?
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+
+<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>What is free software?</h2>
+<!--#include virtual="/licenses/fsf-licensing.html" -->
+
+<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>
+
+<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
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>software”</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>software,” borrowing the French or
Spanish word for
+“free” as in freedom,</em></ins></span> to show we do not mean
<span class="removed"><del><strong>it</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>the software</em></ins></span>
+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; <span class="removed"><del><strong>we can ignore
B.</p></strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>B is not
pertinent to that plan.</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<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>
+
+<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 <span class="removed"><del><strong>the
author.</li></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>previous developers on
request.</li></em></ins></span>
+
+</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: 2016/10/19 14:57:36 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/free-sw.uk-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/free-sw.uk-diff.html
diff -N po/free-sw.uk-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/free-sw.uk-diff.html 19 Oct 2016 14:57:36 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,592 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<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" />
+<title>/philosophy/free-sw.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<title>What is free software?
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+
+<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>What is free software?</h2>
+<!--#include virtual="/licenses/fsf-licensing.html" -->
+
+<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>
+
+<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
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>software”</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>software,” borrowing the French or
Spanish word for
+“free” as in freedom,</em></ins></span> to show we do not mean
<span class="removed"><del><strong>it</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>the software</em></ins></span>
+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; <span class="removed"><del><strong>we can ignore
B.</p></strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>B is not
pertinent to that plan.</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<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>
+
+<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 <span class="removed"><del><strong>the
author.</li></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>previous developers on
request.</li></em></ins></span>
+
+</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: 2016/10/19 14:57:36 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/philosophy free-sw.lt.html free-sw.pl.html ...,
GNUN <=