diff options
author | Christian Grothoff <christian@grothoff.org> | 2020-10-11 13:29:45 +0200 |
---|---|---|
committer | Christian Grothoff <christian@grothoff.org> | 2020-10-11 13:29:45 +0200 |
commit | 1ae0306a3cf2ea27f60b2d205789994d260c2cce (patch) | |
tree | 53117a55c27601e92172ea82f1d8cd11d355c06c /talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_1.html | |
parent | 2e665813a44988bfd906c0fab773f82652047841 (diff) | |
download | taler-merchant-demos-1ae0306a3cf2ea27f60b2d205789994d260c2cce.tar.gz taler-merchant-demos-1ae0306a3cf2ea27f60b2d205789994d260c2cce.tar.bz2 taler-merchant-demos-1ae0306a3cf2ea27f60b2d205789994d260c2cce.zip |
add i18n FSFS
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_1.html')
-rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_1.html | 369 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 369 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_1.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_1.html deleted file mode 100644 index 90c0203..0000000 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_1.html +++ /dev/null @@ -1,369 +0,0 @@ -<!-- This is the second edition of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman. - -Free Software Foundation - -51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor - -Boston, MA 02110-1335 -Copyright C 2002, 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc. -Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire book are permitted -worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is -preserved. Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations -of this book from the original English into another language provided -the translation has been approved by the Free Software Foundation and -the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all -copies. - -ISBN 978-0-9831592-0-9 -Cover design by Rob Myers. - -Cover photograph by Peter Hinely. - --> - - - <a name="The-Free-Software-Definition"> - </a> - <h1 class="chapter"> - 1. The Free Software Definition - </h1> - <a name="index-free-software-_0028see-also-free-software_002c-four-freedoms_002c-citizen-values_002c-selling_002c-and-software_0029"> - </a> - <p> - We maintain this free software definition to show clearly what must be -true about a particular software program for it to be considered free -software. From time to time we revise this definition to clarify it. -If you would like to review the changes we’ve made, please see the -History section, following the definition, at - <a href="http://gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html"> - http://gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html - </a> - . - </p> - <p> - “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.” - </p> - <a name="index-free-software_002c-four-freedoms"> - </a> - <a name="index-four-freedoms"> - </a> - <p> - Free software is a matter of the users’ freedom to run, copy, distribute, -study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it means that the -program’s users have the four essential freedoms: - </p> - <ul> - <li> - The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). - </li> - <li> - The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it -do what 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 users have all of these freedoms. Thus, -you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without -modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to -anyone anywhere. 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 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 improved 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 - <a name="index-tivoization"> - </a> - “tivoization” or (in its practitioners’ -perverse terminology) as - <a name="index-secure-boot-_0028see-also-tivoization_0029"> - </a> - “secure boot”—freedom 1 becomes a theoretical fiction rather -than a practical freedom. This is not sufficient. In other words, -these binaries are not free software even if the source code they are -compiled from is free. - </p> - <p> - One important way to modify a program is by merging in available free -subroutines and modules. - <a name="index-copyright-_0028see-also-both-copyleft-and-DMCA_0029"> - </a> - 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> - <a name="index-copyleft-_0028see-also-copyright_0029-1"> - </a> - <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 copyleft -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 change -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, copyleft (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> - <a name="index-commercial-use-and-development"> - </a> - <a name="index-free-software_002c-to-be-distinguished-from-noncommercial-software"> - </a> - <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 sell copies. - </p> - <p> - Whether a change constitutes an improvement is a subjective matter. -If your modifications are limited, in substance, to changes that -someone else considers an improvement, that is not freedom. - </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> - In the GNU Project, we use copyleft to protect these freedoms legally -for everyone. But - <a name="index-noncopylefted-free-software-_0028see-also-software_0029"> - </a> - noncopylefted free software also exists. We believe there are -important reasons why it is better to use copyleft, but if your -program is noncopylefted free software, it is still basically -ethical. (See “Categories of Free and Nonfree Software” -(p. @refx{Categories-pg}{) for a description of how “free software,” -“copylefted software” and other categories of software relate to -each other.) - <a name="index-copyleft-_0028see-also-copyright_0029-2"> - </a> - </p> - <a name="index-free-software_002c-and-export-control-regulations"> - </a> - <p> - Sometimes government export control regulations 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 export regulations as a -condition of any of the essential freedoms. - </p> - <a name="index-copyright-_0028see-also-both-copyleft-and-DMCA_0029-1"> - </a> - <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> - <a name="index-call-to-action_002c-use-correct-terminology-_0028see-also-terminology_0029"> - </a> - <a name="index-_0060_0060piracy_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term"> - </a> - <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 “Words to -Avoid (or Use with Care)” (p. @refx{Words to Avoid-pg}{) for a discussion -of these terms. We also have a list of proper translations of “free -software” into various languages (p. @refx{FS Translations-pg}{). - </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 list of licenses, at - <a href="http://gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html"> - http://gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html - </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:licensing@gnu.org"> - licensing@gnu.org - </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> - <a name="Beyond-Software"> - </a> - <h3 class="subheading"> - Beyond Software - </h3> - <a name="index-manuals-_0028see-also-manuals_002c-FDL_002c-and-documentation_0029"> - </a> - <p> - Software manuals must be free, 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 name="index-Wikipedia"> - </a> - Wikipedia 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 free cultural works - <a href="#FOOT1" name="DOCF1"> - (1) - </a> - applicable to any kind of works. - <a name="index-free-software-_0028see-also-free-software_002c-four-freedoms_002c-citizen-values_002c-selling_002c-and-software_0029-1"> - </a> - </p> - <div class="footnote"> - <hr> - <h3> - Footnotes - </h3> - <h3> - <a href="#DOCF1" name="FOOT1"> - (1) - </a> - </h3> - <p> - See - <a href="http://freedomdefined.org"> - http://freedomdefined.org - </a> - . - </p> - </hr> - </div> - <hr size="2"/> - |