taler-merchant-demos

applying-free-sw-criteria.html (17217B)

---

 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
 <!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
 <!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
 <!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs practice" -->
 <!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" -->
 <title>Applying the Free Software Criteria
 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
  <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/applying-free-sw-criteria.translist" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
 <!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
 <div class="article reduced-width">
 <h2>Applying the Free Software Criteria</h2>
 
 <address class="byline">by Richard Stallman</address>
 
 <p>The four essential freedoms provide the criteria for <a
 href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">whether a particular piece of code is
 free/libre</a> (i.e., respects its users' freedom).  How should we
 apply them to judge whether a software package, an operating system, a
 computer, or a web page is fit to recommend?</p>
 
 <p>Whether a program is free affects first of all our decisions about our
 private activities: to maintain our freedom, we need to reject the
 programs that would take it away.  However, it also affects what we
 should say to others and do with others.</p>
 
 <p>A nonfree program is an injustice.  To distribute a nonfree program,
 to recommend a nonfree program to other people, or more generally
 steer them into a course that leads to using nonfree software, means
 leading them to give up their freedom.  To be sure, leading people to
 use nonfree software is not the same as installing nonfree software in
 their computers, but we should not lead people in the wrong direction.</p>
 
 <p>At a deeper level, we must not present a nonfree program as a solution
 because that would grant it legitimacy.  Nonfree software is a
 problem; <a href="/philosophy/compromise.html"> to present it as a
 solution denies the existence of the problem</a>.</p>
 
 <p>This article explains how we apply the basic free software criteria to
 judging various kinds of things, so we can decide whether to recommend
 them or not.</p>
 
 <h3>Software packages</h3>
 
 <p>For a software package to be free, all the code in it must be free.
 But not only the code.  Since documentation files including manuals,
 README, change log, and so on are essential technical parts of a
 software package, <a href="/philosophy/free-doc.html">they must be
 free as well</a>.</p>
 
 <p>A software package is typically used alongside many other packages,
 and interacts with some of them.  Which kinds of interaction with
 nonfree programs are ethically acceptable?</p>
 
 <p>We developed GNU so that there would be a free operating system,
 because in 1983 none existed.  As we developed the initial components
 of GNU, in the 1980s, it was inevitable that each component depended
 on nonfree software.  For instance, no C program could run without a
 nonfree C compiler until GCC was working, and none could run without
 Unix libc until glibc was working.  Each component could run only
 on nonfree systems, because all systems were nonfree.</p>
 
 <p>After we released a component that could run on some nonfree systems,
 users ported it to other nonfree systems; those ports were no worse,
 ethically, than the platform-specific code we needed to develop these
 components, so we incorporated their patches.</p>
 
 <p>When the kernel, Linux, was freed in 1992, it filled the last gap in
 the GNU system.  (Initially, in 1991, Linux had been distributed under
 a nonfree license.)  The combination of GNU and Linux made a complete
 free operating system&mdash;<a
 href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a>.</p>
 
 <p>At that point, we could have deleted the support for nonfree
 platforms, but we decided not to.  A nonfree system is an injustice,
 but it's not our fault a user runs one.  Supporting a free program on
 that system does not compound the injustice.  And it's useful, not
 only for users of those systems, but also for attracting more people
 to contribute to developing the free program.</p>
 
 <p>However, a nonfree program that runs on top of a free program is a
 completely different issue, because it leads users to take a step away
 from freedom.  In some cases we disallow this: for instance, <a
 href="https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00247.html">GCC prohibits
 nonfree plug-ins</a>.  When a program permits nonfree add-ons, it
 should at least not steer people towards using them.  For instance, we
 choose LibreOffice over OpenOffice because OpenOffice suggests use of
 nonfree add-ons, while LibreOffice shuns them.  We developed <a
 href="https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/IceCat">IceCat</a> initially to
 avoid proposing the nonfree add-ons suggested by Firefox.</p>
 
 <p>In practice, if the IceCat package explains how to run IceCat on
 MacOS, that will not lead people to run MacOS.  But if it talked about
 some nonfree add-on, that would encourage IceCat users to install the
 add-on.  Therefore, the IceCat package, including manuals and web
 site, shouldn't talk about such things.</p>
 
 <p>Sometimes a free program and a nonfree program interoperate but
 neither is based on the other.  Our rule for such cases is that if the
 nonfree program is very well known, we should tell people how to use
 our free program with it; but if the proprietary program is obscure,
 we should not hint that it exists.  Sometimes we support
 interoperation with the nonfree program if that is installed, but
 avoid telling users about the possibility of doing so.</p>
 
 <p>We reject &ldquo;enhancements&rdquo; that would work only on a nonfree system.
 Those would encourage people to use the nonfree system instead of GNU,
 scoring an own-goal.</p>
 
 <h3>GNU/Linux distros</h3>
 
 <p>After the liberation of Linux in 1992, people began developing
 GNU/Linux distributions (&ldquo;distros&rdquo;).  Only a few distros
 are <a href="/distros">entirely free software</a>.</p>
 
 <p>The rules for a software package apply to a distro too: an ethical
 distro must contain only free software and steer users only towards
 free software.  But what does it mean for a distro to
 &ldquo;contain&rdquo; a particular software package?</p>
 
 <p>Some distros install programs from binary packages that are part of
 the distro; others build each program from upstream source, and
 literally <em>contain</em> only the recipes to download and build it.
 For issues of freedom, how a distro installs a given package is not
 significant; if it presents that package as an option, or its web site
 does, we say it &ldquo;contains&rdquo; that package.</p>
 
 <p>The users of a free system have control over it, so they can install
 whatever they wish.  Free distros provide general facilities with
 which users can install their own programs and their modified versions
 of free programs; they can also install nonfree programs.  Providing
 these general facilities is not an ethical flaw in the distro, because
 the distro's developers are not responsible for what users get and
 install on their own initiative.</p>
 
 <p>The developers become responsible for installation of nonfree software
 when they steer the users toward a nonfree program&mdash;for
 instance, by putting it in the distro's list of packages, or
 distributing it from their server, or presenting it as a solution
 rather than a problem.  This is the point where most GNU/Linux
 distros have an ethical flaw.</p>
 
 <p>People who install software packages on their own have a certain level
 of sophistication: if we tell them &ldquo;Baby contains nonfree code,
 but Gbaby is free,&rdquo; we can expect them to take care to remember
 which is which.  But distros are recommended to ordinary users who
 would forget such details.  They would think, &ldquo;What name did
 they say I should use?  I think it was Baby.&rdquo;</p>
 
 <p>Therefore, to recommend a distro to the general public, we insist that
 its name not be similar to a distro we reject, so our message
 recommending only the free distro can be reliably transmitted.</p>
 
 <p>Another difference between a distro and a software package is how
 likely it is for nonfree code to be added.  The developers of a
 program carefully check the code they add.  If they have decided to
 make the program free, they are unlikely to add nonfree code.
 There have been exceptions, including the very harmful case of the
 &ldquo;binary blobs&rdquo; that were added to Linux, but they are a
 small fraction of the free programs that exist.</p>
 
 <p>By contrast, a GNU/Linux distro typically contains thousands of
 packages, and the distro's developers may add hundreds of packages a
 year.  Without a careful effort to avoid packages that contain some
 nonfree software, some will surely creep in.  Since the free distros
 are few in number, we ask the developers of each free distro to make a
 commitment to keep the distro free software by removing any nonfree
 code or malware, as a condition for listing that distro.  See the <a
 href="/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html">GNU free
 system distribution guidelines</a>.</p>
 
 <p>We don't ask for such promises for free software packages: it's not
 feasible, and fortunately not necessary.  To get promises from the
 developers of 30,000 free programs to keep them free would avoid a few
 problems, at the cost of much work for the FSF staff; in addition,
 most of those developers have no relationship with the GNU Project and
 might have no interest in making us any promises.  So we deal with
 the rare cases that change from free to nonfree, when we find out
 about them.</p>
 
 <h3>Peripherals</h3>
 
 <p>A computer peripheral needs software in the computer&mdash;perhaps a
 driver, perhaps firmware to be loaded by the system into the
 peripheral to make it run.  Thus, a peripheral is acceptable to use
 and recommend if it can be used from a computer that has no nonfree
 software installed&mdash;the peripheral's driver, and any firmware that
 the system needs to load into it, are free.</p>
 
 <p>It is simple to check this: connect the peripheral to a computer
 running a totally free GNU/Linux distro and see if it works.  But most
 users would like to know <em>before</em> they buy the peripheral, so
 we list information about many peripherals
 in <a href="https://www.h-node.org/">h-node.org</a>, a hardware
 database for fully free operating systems.</p>
 
 <h3>Computers</h3>
 
 <p>A computer contains software at various levels.  On what criterion
 should we certify that a computer &ldquo;Respects Your Freedom&rdquo;?</p>
 
 <p>Obviously the operating system and everything above it must be free.
 In the 90s, the startup software (BIOS, then) became replaceable, and
 since it runs on the CPU, it is the same sort of issue as the
 operating system.  Thus, programs such as firmware and drivers that
 are installed in or with the system or the startup software must be free.</p>
 
 <p>If a computer has hardware features that require nonfree drivers or
 firmware installed with the system, we may be able to endorse it.  If
 it is usable without those features, and if we think most people won't
 be led to install the nonfree software to make them function, then we
 can endorse it.  Otherwise, we can't.  This will be a judgment call.</p>
 
 <p>A computer can have modifiable preinstalled firmware and microcode at
 lower levels.  It can also have code in true read-only memory.  We
 decided to ignore these programs in our certification criteria today,
 because otherwise no computer could comply, and because firmware that
 is not normally changed is ethically equivalent to circuits.  So our
 certification criteria cover only the code that runs on the computer's
 main processor and is not in true read-only memory.  When and as free
 software becomes possible for other levels of processing, we will
 require free software at those levels too.</p>
 
 <p>Since certifying a product is active promotion of it, we insist
 that the seller support us in return, by talking
 about <a href="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html">free
 software</a> rather
 than <a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">open
 source</a> and referring to the combination of GNU and Linux
 as <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">&ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;</a>.  We
 have no obligation to actively promote projects that won't recognize
 our work and support our movement.</p>
 
 <p>See <a href="https://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement/criteria">our
 certification criteria</a>.</p>
 
 <h3>Web pages</h3>
 
 <p>Nowadays many web pages contain complex JavaScript programs and won't
 work without them.  This is a harmful practice since it hampers users'
 control over their computing.  Furthermore, most of these programs are
 nonfree, an injustice.  Often the JavaScript code spies on the user.
 <a href="/philosophy/javascript-trap.html">JavaScript has morphed into
 a attack on users' freedom.</a></p>
 
 <p>To address this problem, we have developed <a
 href="/software/librejs">LibreJS</a>, an add-on for Firefox that
 blocks nontrivial nonfree JavaScript code.  (There is no need to block
 the simple scripts that implement minor user interface hacks.)  We ask
 sites to please free their JavaScript programs and mark their licenses
 for LibreJS to recognize.</p>
 
 <p>Meanwhile, is it ethical to link to a web page that contains a nonfree
 JavaScript program?  If we were totally unyielding, we would link only
 to free JavaScript code.  However, many pages do work even when their
 JavaScript code is not run.  Also, you will most often encounter nonfree
 JavaScript in other ways besides following our links; to avoid it,
 you must use LibreJS or disable JavaScript.  So we have decided to go
 ahead and link to pages that work without nonfree JavaScript, while urging
 users to protect themselves from nonfree JavaScript in general.</p>
 
 <p>However, if a page can't do its job without running the nonfree
 JavaScript code, linking to it undeniably asks people to run that
 nonfree code.  On principle, we do not link to such pages.</p>
 
 <h3>Conclusion</h3>
 
 <p>Applying the basic idea that <em>software should be free</em> to
 different situations leads to different practical policies.  As new
 situations arise, the GNU Project and the Free Software Foundation
 will adapt our freedom criteria so as to lead computer users towards
 freedom, in practice and in principle.  By recommending only
 freedom-respecting programs, distros, and hardware products, and
 stating your policy, you can give much-needed support to the free
 software movement.</p>
 </div>
 
 </div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
 <div id="footer" role="contentinfo">
 <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 contributing 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 contributing 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; 2015, 2021 Richard Stallman</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: 2021/09/05 07:59:44 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>
 </div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
 </body>
 </html>