Copyleft/guide
6
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Updates to the Free Software Definition section.

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Bradley M. Kuhn 2014-03-15 12:28:05 -04:00
parent 110e1b08fe
commit ed6fe59dfc
1 changed files with 43 additions and 46 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

89
gpl-lgpl.tex
View file

@ -103,68 +103,65 @@ to have learned the following:
\chapter{What Is Software Freedom?}
Consideration of the GNU General Public License (herein, abbreviated as
\defn{GNU GPL} or just \defn{GPL}) must begin by first considering the broader
world of Free Software. The GPL was not created from a void, rather,
it was created to embody and defend a set of principles that were set
forth at the founding of the GNU project and the Free Software Foundation
(FSF)---the organization that upholds, defends and promotes the philosophy
of software freedom. A prerequisite for understanding both of the popular
versions of GPL (GPLv2 and GPLv3) and their
terms and conditions is a basic understanding of the principles behind it.
The GPL family of licenses are unlike almost all other software licenses in that it is
designed to defend and uphold these principles.
Study of the GNU General Public License (herein, abbreviated as \defn{GNU
GPL} or just \defn{GPL}) must begin by first considering the broader world
of software freedom. The GPL was not created from a void, rather, it was
created to embody and defend a set of principles that were set forth at the
founding of the GNU project and the Free Software Foundation (FSF) -- the
organization that upholds, defends and promotes the philosophy of software
freedom. A prerequisite for understanding both of the popular versions of GPL
(GPLv2 and GPLv3) and their terms and conditions is a basic understanding of
the principles behind it. The GPL family of licenses are unlike almost all
other software licenses in that they are designed to defend and uphold these
principles.
\section{The Free Software Definition}
\label{Free Software Definition}
The Free Software Definition is set forth in full on FSF's Web site at
\verb0http://www.fsf.org/0 \verb0philosophy/free-sw.html0. This section
presents an abbreviated version that will focus on the parts that are most
pertinent to the terms of the GPL\@.
The Free Software Definition is set forth in full on FSF's website at
\verb0http://fsf.org/0 \verb0philosophy/free-sw.html0. This section presents
an abbreviated version that will focus on the parts that are most pertinent
to the GPL\@.
A particular program is Free Software if it grants a particular user of
that program, the following freedoms:
A particular program grants software freedom to a particular user if that
user is granted the following freedoms:
\begin{itemize}
\item The freedom to run the program for any purpose
\item The freedom to change and modify the program
\teim The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
\item The freedom to copy and share the program
\item The freedom to study how the program works, and modify it
\item The freedom to share improved versions of the program
\item The freedom to redistribute copies.
\item The freedom to distribute copies of modified versions to others.
\end{itemize}
The focus on ``a particular user'' is very pertinent here. It is not
uncommon for the same version of a specific program to grant these
freedoms to some subset of its user base, while others have none or only
some of these freedoms. Section~\ref{Proprietary Relicensing} talks in
detail about how this can happen even if a program is released under the
GPL\@.
The focus on ``a particular user'' is particularly pertinent here. It is not
uncommon for the same version of a specific program to grant these freedoms
to some subset of its user base, while others have none or only some of these
freedoms. Section~\ref{Proprietary Relicensing} talks in detail about how
this can unfortunately happen even if a program is released under the GPL\@.
Some people refer to software that gives these freedoms as ``Open
Source.'' Besides having a different political focus than those who
call it Free Software,\footnote{The political differences between the
Free Software Movement and the Open Source Movement are documented
on FSF's Web site at {\tt
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-software-for-freedom.html}.}
those who call the software ``Open Source'' are focused on a side
issue. User access to the source code of a program is a prerequisite
to make use of the freedom to modify. However, the important issue is
what freedoms are granted in the license of that source code.
Microsoft's ``Shared Source'' program, for example, gives various
types of access to source code, but almost none of the freedoms
described in this section.
Many people refer to software that gives these freedoms as ``Open Source.''
Besides having a different political focus than those who call it Free
Software,\footnote{The political differences between the Free Software
Movement and the Open Source Movement are documented on FSF's Web site at
{\tt http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-software-for-freedom.html}.}
those who call the software ``Open Source'' are often focused on a side
issue. Specifically, user access to the source code of a program is a
prerequisite to make use of the freedom to modify. However, the important
issue is what freedoms are granted in the license of that source code.
One key issue central to these freedoms is that there are no
restrictions on how these freedoms can be exercised. Specifically, users
and programmers can exercise these freedoms noncommercially or
commercially. Licenses that grant these freedoms for noncommercial
activities but prohibit them for commercial activities are considered
non-Free.
Software freedom is only complete when no restrictions are imposed on how
these freedoms are exercised. Specifically, users and programmers can
exercise these freedoms noncommercially or commercially. Licenses that grant
these freedoms for noncommercial activities but prohibit them for commercial
activities are considered non-free. Even the Open Source Initiative
(\defn{OSI}) (the arbiter of what is considered ``Open Source'') also rules
such licenses not in fitting with their ``Open Source Definition''.
In general, software for which most or all of these freedoms are
restricted in any way is called ``non-Free Software.'' Typically, the