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