diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-sw.html')
-rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-sw.html | 662 |
1 files changed, 662 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-sw.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-sw.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..728eef1 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-sw.html @@ -0,0 +1,662 @@ +<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.86 --> +<title>What is free software? +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> +<style type="text/css" media="print,screen"><!-- +.note { margin-left: 6%; margin-right: 6%; } +@media (min-width: 48em) { + .note { margin-top: .8em; } +} +--></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>What is free software?</h2> + +<div class="article"> +<h3>The Free Software Definition</h3> + +<blockquote class="note" id="fsf-licensing"><p style="font-size: 80%"> +Have a question about free software licensing not answered here? +See our other <a href="http://www.fsf.org/licensing">licensing resources</a>, +and if necessary contact the FSF Compliance Lab +at <a href="mailto:licensing@fsf.org">licensing@fsf.org</a>.</p> +</blockquote> + +<div class="comment"> +<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> + +<p> +“Open source” is something different: it has a very +different philosophy based on different values. Its practical +definition is different too, but nearly all open source programs are +in fact free. We explain the +difference in <a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html"> +Why “Open Source” misses the point of Free Software</a>. +</p> +</div> + +<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> + +<h4> The four essential freedoms</h4> + +<p> +A program is free software if the program's users have the +four essential freedoms: <a href="#f1">[1]</a> +</p> + +<ul class="important"> + <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 others + (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> +“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> +A free program must offer the four freedoms to any user that obtains a +copy of the software, provided the user has complied thus far with the +conditions of the free license covering the software. Putting some of +the freedoms off limits to some users, or requiring that users pay, in +money or in kind, to exercise them, is tantamount to not granting the +freedoms in question, and thus renders the program nonfree. +</p> + +<h3>Clarifying the line at various points</h3> + +<p>In the rest of this article we explain more precisely how far the +various freedoms need to extend, on various issues, in order for a +program to be free.</p> + +<h4>The freedom to run the program as you wish</h4> + +<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 making it run. This has nothing to do with what +functionality the program has, whether it is technically capable of +functioning in any given environment, or whether it is useful for any +particular computing activity.</p> + +<p>For example, if the code arbitrarily rejects certain meaningful +inputs—or even fails unconditionally—that may make the +program less useful, perhaps even totally useless, but it does not +deny users the freedom to run the program, so it does not conflict +with freedom 0. If the program is free, the users can overcome the +loss of usefulness, because freedoms 1 and 3 permit users and +communities to make and distribute modified versions without the +arbitrary nuisance code.</p> + +<h4>The freedom to study the source code and make changes</h4> + +<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 need to 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> +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> + +<h4>The freedom to redistribute if you wish: basic requirements</h4> + +<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> +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> +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> + +<h4>Copyleft</h4> + +<p> +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> + +<h4>Rules about packaging and distribution details</h4> + +<p> +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> + +<h4>Export regulations</h4> + +<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> + +<h4>Legal considerations</h4> + +<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> +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> + +<h4>Contract-based licenses</h4> + +<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> + +<h4>Use the right words when talking about free software</h4> + +<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> + +<h4>How we interpret these criteria</h4> + +<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> + +<h4>Get help with free licenses</h4> + +<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: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> + +<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=1.164&r2=1.165">Version +1.165</a>: Clarify that arbitrary annoyances in the code do not +negate freedom 0, and that freedoms 1 and 3 enable users to remove them.</li> + +<li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.152&r2=1.153">Version +1.153</a>: Clarify that freedom to run the program means nothing stops +you from making it run.</li> + +<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> + +<h3 style="font-size:1em">Footnote</h3> +<ol> +<li id="f1">The reason they are numbered 0, 1, 2 and 3 is historical. Around +1990 there were three freedoms, numbered 1, 2 and 3. Then we realized that +the freedom to run the program needed to be mentioned explicitly. +It was clearly more basic than the other three, so it properly should +precede them. Rather than renumber the others, we made it freedom 0.</li> +</ol> + +</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:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></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:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></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:web-translators@gnu.org"> + <web-translators@gnu.org></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, 2009-2019 +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: 2019/07/30 10:09:02 $ +<!-- timestamp end --> +</p> +</div> +</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --> +</body> +</html> |