taler-merchant-demos

free-sw.html (34067B)

---

 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
 <!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
 <!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
 <!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs principles" -->
 <!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" -->
 <title>What is Free Software?
 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
 <style type="text/css" media="print,screen"><!--
 .toc > ul > li { list-style-type: none; font-weight: bold; }
 .toc ul { font-weight: normal; }
 #History ~ p, #History ~ ul { font-size: 1rem; }
 --></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" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
 <!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
 <div class="article reduced-width">
 <h2>What is Free Software?</h2>
 <div class="thin"></div>
 
 <div class="important">
 <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>
 You may have paid money to get copies of a free program, 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>
 </div>
 
 <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>
 
 <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 class="toc">
 <hr class="no-display" />
 <h3 class="no-display">Table of contents</h3>
 <ul>
  <li><a href="#fs-definition">The Free Software Definition</a>
   <ul>
    <li><a href="#four-freedoms">The four essential freedoms</a></li>
    <li><a href="#selling">Free software <em>can</em> be commercial</a></li>
   </ul>
  </li>
  <li><a href="#clarifying">Clarifying the Boundary Between Free and Nonfree</a>
   <ul>
    <li><a href="#run-the-program">The freedom to run the program as you
      wish</a></li>
    <li><a href="#make-changes">The freedom to study the source code and make
      changes</a></li>
    <li><a href="#redistribute">The freedom to redistribute if you wish:
      basic requirements</a></li>
    <li><a href="#copyleft">Copyleft</a></li>
    <li><a href="#packaging">Rules about packaging and distribution
      details</a></li>
    <li><a href="#exportcontrol">Export regulations</a></li>
    <li><a href="#legal-details">Legal considerations</a></li>
    <li><a href="#contracts">Contract-based licenses</a></li>
   </ul>
  </li>
  <li><a href="#in-practice">The Free Software Definition in Practice</a>
   <ul>
    <li><a href="#interpretation">How we interpret these criteria</a></li>
    <li><a href="#get-help">Get help with free licenses</a></li>
    <li><a href="#terminology">Use the right words when talking about free
      software</a></li>
   </ul>
  </li>
  <li><a href="#beyond-software">Beyond Software</a></li>
  <li><a href="#History">History</a></li>
 </ul>
 </div>
 
 <div class="edu-note" id="fsf-licensing" role="complementary">
 <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>
 <hr class="no-display" />
 </div>
 
 
 <h3 id="fs-definition">The Free Software Definition</h3>
 
 <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>
 
 <h4 id="four-freedoms">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>
 
 
 <h4 id="selling">Free software <em>can</em> be commercial</h4>
 
 <p>
 &ldquo;Free software&rdquo; does not mean &ldquo;noncommercial.&rdquo;
 On the contrary, a free program must be available for commercial use,
 commercial development, and commercial distribution.  This policy is
 of fundamental importance&mdash;without this, free software could not
 achieve its aims.
 </p>
 
 <p>
 We want to invite everyone to use the GNU system, including businesses
 and their workers.  That requires allowing commercial use.  We hope
 that free replacement programs will supplant comparable proprietary
 programs, but they can't do that if businesses are forbidden to use
 them.  We want commercial products that contain software to include
 the GNU system, and that would constitute commercial distribution for
 a price.  Commercial development of free software is no longer
 unusual; such free commercial software is very important.  Paid,
 professional support for free software fills an important need.
 </p>
 
 <p>
 Thus, to exclude commercial use, commercial development or commercial
 distribution would hobble the free software community and obstruct its
 path to success.  We must conclude that a program licensed with such
 restrictions does not qualify as free software.
 </p>
 
 <p>
 A free program must offer the four freedoms to any would-be user that
 obtains a copy of the software, who has complied thus far with the
 conditions of the free license covering the software in any previous
 distribution of it.  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 id="clarifying">Clarifying the Boundary Between Free and Nonfree</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 id="run-the-program">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>
 
 <p>&ldquo;As you wish&rdquo; includes, optionally, &ldquo;not at
 all&rdquo; if that is what you wish.  So there is no need for a
 separate &ldquo;freedom not to run a program.&rdquo;</p>
 
 <h4 id="make-changes">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>
 Source code is defined as the preferred form of the program for making
 changes in.  Thus, whatever form a developer changes to develop
 the program is the source code of that developer's version.
 </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>
 
 <p>
 One special case of freedom 1 is to delete the program's code so it
 returns after doing nothing, or make it invoke some other program.
 Thus, freedom 1 includes the &ldquo;freedom to delete the program.&rdquo;
 </p>
 
 <h4 id="redistribute">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="/licenses/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 id="copyleft">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="/licenses/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 id="packaging">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 id="exportcontrol">Export regulations</h4>
 
 <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 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 id="legal-details">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 id="contracts">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>
 
 <h3 id="in-practice">The Free Software Definition in Practice</h3>
 
 <h4 id="interpretation">How we interpret these criteria</h4>
 
 <p>
 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 id="get-help">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>
 
 <h4 id="terminology">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>
 
 <p id="open-source">
 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; never refers to freedom.
 </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="https://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="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="//web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.168&amp;r2=1.169">Version
 1.169</a>: Explain more clearly why the four freedoms must apply
 to commercial activity.  Explain why the four freedoms imply the
 freedom not to run the program and the freedom to delete it, so there
 is no need to state those as separate requirements.</li>
 
 <li><a href="//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="//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="//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="//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="//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="//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="//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="//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="//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="//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="//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="//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="//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="//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="//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="//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="//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>&ldquo;Improvements&rdquo; 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="//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 &ldquo;Beyond Software&rdquo; section.</li>
 
 <li><a href="//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="//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="//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="//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="//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="//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="//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="//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="//web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;view=log">cvsweb
 interface</a>.</p>
 <div class="column-limit"></div>
 
 <h3 class="footnote">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>
 
 </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; 1996-2002, 2004-2019, 2021, 2022
 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: 2022/06/25 20:55:18 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>
 </div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
 </body>
 </html>