From 2d97ecc2c1ac605ca49e8a866b309daaeb7a831c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: MS Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 14:53:45 +0200 Subject: Installing the Blog --- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_1.html | 369 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 369 insertions(+) create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_1.html (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_1.html') diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_1.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_1.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..90c0203 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_1.html @@ -0,0 +1,369 @@ + + + + + +

+ 1. The Free Software Definition +

+ + +

+ 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 + + http://gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html + + . +

+

+ “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.” +

+ + + + +

+ 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: +

+ +

+ 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. +

+

+ 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. +

+

+ 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 + + user’s + + purpose that matters, +not the + + developer’s + + 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. +

+

+ 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. +

+

+ 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. +

+

+ 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 (in its practitioners’ +perverse terminology) as + + + “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. +

+

+ 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. +

+ + +

+ 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. +

+

+ 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. +

+

+ 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. +

+ + + + +

+ “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. +

+

+ 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. +

+

+ 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. +

+

+ 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. +

+

+ In the GNU Project, we use copyleft to protect these freedoms legally +for everyone. But + + + 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.) + + +

+ + +

+ 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. +

+ + +

+ 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. +

+

+ 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. +

+ + + + +

+ 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}{). +

+

+ 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. +

+

+ If you are interested in whether a specific license qualifies as a +free software license, see our list of licenses, at + + http://gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html + + . If the +license you are concerned with is not listed there, you can ask us +about it by sending us email at + + licensing@gnu.org + + . +

+

+ 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. +

+

+ 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. +

+ + +

+ Beyond Software +

+ + +

+ 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. +

+

+ 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. + + + Wikipedia is the best-known example. +

+

+ Any kind of work + + can + + be free, and the definition of free software +has been extended to a definition of free cultural works + + (1) + + applicable to any kind of works. + + +

+
+
+

+ Footnotes +

+

+ + (1) + +

+

+ See + + http://freedomdefined.org + + . +

+ +
+
+ -- cgit v1.2.3