summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-sw.html
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-sw.html')
-rw-r--r--talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-sw.html662
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>
+&ldquo;Open source&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;Open Source&rdquo; misses the point of Free Software</a>.
+</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>
+&ldquo;Free software&rdquo; 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, &ldquo;free software&rdquo; is a matter of
+liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of
+&ldquo;free&rdquo; as in &ldquo;free speech,&rdquo; not as in
+&ldquo;free beer&rdquo;. We sometimes call it &ldquo;libre
+software,&rdquo; borrowing the French or Spanish word for
+&ldquo;free&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;nonfree&rdquo; or
+&ldquo;proprietary&rdquo; 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>
+&ldquo;Free software&rdquo; does not mean &ldquo;noncommercial&rdquo;. 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&mdash;or even fails unconditionally&mdash;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
+&ldquo;source code&rdquo; 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 &mdash; a
+practice known as &ldquo;tivoization&rdquo; or &ldquo;lockdown&rdquo;,
+or (in its practitioners' perverse terminology) as &ldquo;secure
+boot&rdquo; &mdash; 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 &mdash; for instance, if it
+requires you to be the copyright holder of any code you add &mdash; 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 &ldquo;free software,&rdquo;
+&ldquo;copylefted software&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;if you make your version available in this way, you
+must make it available in that way also&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;all the programs you use&rdquo;, 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 &ldquo;give away&rdquo; or &ldquo;for free,&rdquo; because those terms imply that
+the issue is about price, not freedom. Some common terms such
+as &ldquo;piracy&rdquo; 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
+&ldquo;free software&rdquo;</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">&lt;licensing@gnu.org&gt;</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 &mdash; 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 &ldquo;open source&rdquo; to mean
+something close (but not identical) to &ldquo;free software&rdquo;. We
+prefer the term &ldquo;free software&rdquo; because, once you have heard that
+it refers to freedom rather than price, it calls to mind freedom. The
+word &ldquo;open&rdquo; <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&amp;r1=1.164&amp;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&amp;r1=1.152&amp;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&amp;r1=1.140&amp;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&amp;r1=1.134&amp;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&amp;r1=1.133&amp;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&amp;r1=1.130&amp;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&amp;r1=1.128&amp;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&amp;r1=1.121&amp;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&amp;r1=1.117&amp;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 &ldquo;improvements&rdquo;</li>
+
+<li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.110&amp;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&amp;r1=1.104&amp;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&amp;r1=1.91&amp;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&amp;r1=1.89&amp;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&amp;r1=1.88&amp;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&amp;r1=1.79&amp;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&amp;r1=1.76&amp;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&amp;r1=1.73&amp;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&amp;r1=1.56&amp;r2=1.57">Version
+1.57</a>: Add &quot;Beyond Software&quot; section.</li>
+
+<li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.45&amp;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&amp;r1=1.40&amp;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&amp;r1=1.39&amp;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&amp;r1=1.38&amp;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&amp;r1=1.30&amp;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&amp;r1=1.22&amp;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&amp;r1=1.15&amp;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&amp;r1=1.10&amp;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&amp;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&nbsp;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 &amp; GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</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">&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</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">
+ &lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;</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 &copy; 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>