172 satır
7.4 KiB
HTML
172 satır
7.4 KiB
HTML
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
|
|
|
|
<html>
|
|
<version>1</version>
|
|
|
|
<head>
|
|
<title>FSF Europe - Observing WIPO - Free Software Essentials Reference Sheet</title>
|
|
</head>
|
|
|
|
<body>
|
|
|
|
<p align="center">
|
|
[ <a href="FSER.pdf">PDF Version (53k)</a> ]
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<h1 align="center">Free Software - Essentials Reference Sheet</h1>
|
|
|
|
<p>Free Software has become an issue of increasing importance in all
|
|
political fora, national and international. This paper aims to provide
|
|
a reference of some Free Software essentials to allow delegates to
|
|
focus on the substance.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h2>Free for freedom, not price</h2>
|
|
|
|
<p>Free in Free Software exclusively refers to freedom, it never refers
|
|
to price. This fact warrants highlighting because it is at times
|
|
obscured by a particular weakness of the English language that is
|
|
generally not shared by other languages. Primarily used in this
|
|
definition since the 1980s, Free Software is defined by four
|
|
fundamental freedoms:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><b>The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.</b><br />
|
|
<em>Placing restrictions on the use of Free Software, such
|
|
as time (30 days trial period'', ''license expires January 1st, 2007'')
|
|
purpose (''permission granted for research and non-commercial use'') or
|
|
geographic area (''must not be used in country X'') makes a program
|
|
non-free.</em></li>
|
|
<li><b>The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to
|
|
your needs.</b><br />
|
|
<em>Placing legal or practical restrictions on the
|
|
comprehension or modification of a program, such as mandatory purchase
|
|
of special licenses, signing of a Non-Disclosure-Agreement
|
|
(NDA) or making the preferred human way of comprehending and editing a program
|
|
(and its ''source code'') inaccessible also makes it proprietary.</em></li>
|
|
<li><b>The freedom to make and redistribute copies.</b><br />
|
|
<em>If you are not allowed to give a program to someone else,
|
|
that makes a program non-free. This can be done for a charge, if you so
|
|
choose.</em></li>
|
|
<li><b>The freedom to improve the program, and release improvements.</b><br />
|
|
<em>Not everyone is a programmer, or a programmer equally good
|
|
in all fields. This freedom allows those with the necessary
|
|
skills to share them with those who do not possess them. This can be done for a
|
|
charge.</em></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<h3>Rights, not obligations</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>These freedoms are rights, not obligations. Any institution and person
|
|
can choose to not make use of them, but may also choose to make use of
|
|
all of them. In particular, it should be understood that Free Software
|
|
does not exclude commercial use. If a program fails to allow
|
|
commercial use and commercial distribution, it is not Free
|
|
Software. Indeed a growing number of companies base their business
|
|
model completely or partially on Free Software, including
|
|
some of the largest proprietary software vendors. Free Software makes
|
|
it legal to provide help and assistance, it does not make it
|
|
mandatory.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>Implemented in Copyright</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>These freedoms are generally implemented by means of copyright,
|
|
although not in all cases: public domain software is also Free
|
|
Software, although a special case. For the vast majority of Free
|
|
Software it is the copyright license that determines whether a
|
|
particular program is indeed Free Software. If a copyright license
|
|
grants the freedoms described above, it is a Free Software license, of
|
|
which between 50 and 150 are in use today.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>This suprisingly low
|
|
number is caused by the tradition to choose established and
|
|
well-understood licenses for Free Software, rather than writing a new
|
|
license for every program. Thus, by examining a handful of
|
|
comparatively simple licenses, it is possible to understand the
|
|
licensing terms of more than 90% of all Free Software, greatly
|
|
reducing the overhead of licensing administration and compliance.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h2>Terminology</h2>
|
|
|
|
<p>Free Software is discussed under various headings, with alleged
|
|
antonyms and synonyms, which frequently cause confusion and doubt and
|
|
will therefore be explained briefly.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>Antonyms</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>The antonym of Free Software is proprietary software, or non-free
|
|
software. Commercial software is not an antonym to Free Software,
|
|
being commercial is unrelated to freedom. Commercial Free Software is
|
|
just as normal as non-commercial proprietary software, sometimes also
|
|
referred to as ''freeware''.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>Synonyms</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>As of 1992, the term ''Libre Software'' was promoted as a synoym to
|
|
Free Software in parts of Europe to address the particular confusion of
|
|
the English language. The term ''Open Source'' was proposed in 1998 as
|
|
a marketing term for Free Software by the Open Source Initiative
|
|
(OSI). The OSI definition of ''Open Source'' covers an identical
|
|
body of copyright licenses to that of the 1989 Free Software
|
|
Definition explained above.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>From the copyright licensing
|
|
viewpoint, both ''Libre Software'' and ''Open Source'' are Free
|
|
Software synonyms. Combination of terms, such as ''FOSS'' and
|
|
''FLOSS'' combine synonyms, redundantly identifying the
|
|
same body of software.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>Ambiguities</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>The term ''Open Source'' was occasionally used in various ways before
|
|
its 1998 definition, and is used in several meanings today, which are
|
|
often mutually exclusive with each other, and in particular the Open
|
|
Source Definition of the OSI. So ''Open Source'' can refer to Free
|
|
Software, but it can also refer to software not meeting the criteria
|
|
above. It is also at times used to describe a particular software
|
|
development model, although some parts of Free Software are
|
|
developed in closed development models, and proprietary software is
|
|
increasingly experimenting with open development approaches. This
|
|
makes the term ''Open Source'' highly ambiguous, and indeed difficult
|
|
for all areas that depend on precision in their language, such as
|
|
science, law and politics.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h2>Public Policy Considerations</h2>
|
|
|
|
<p>Unlike
|
|
proprietary software, there is never any single company that has
|
|
absolute control of a Free Software solution. By choosing Free
|
|
Software, governments protect their independence from the corporate
|
|
interests of any single vendor, local or foreign. Maintaining their
|
|
ability to freely and independently live up to their political mandate
|
|
is the sovereign right of any government. Preferring or mandating Free
|
|
Software promotes this goal and is always non-discriminatory. It
|
|
preserves technological and political neutrality because Free Software
|
|
belongs to no single vendor or organisation, and any vendor is welcome
|
|
to supply Free Software of third parties. If vendors seek to do
|
|
business with governments, they can make the decision to give them
|
|
independence by releasing their own software under a Free Software
|
|
license.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>About the FSFE</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>The <a href="/index.html">Free Software Foundation
|
|
Europe</a> (FSFE) is a European NGO dedicated to all aspects of Free
|
|
Software. It provides a competence center for industry, politics and
|
|
society at large and participates in numerous activities, including as
|
|
fiduciary for Free Software authors, and participates in research and
|
|
development activities on European and national levels. More
|
|
information at <a
|
|
href="/">https://fsfe.org</a>. To contact the
|
|
author of this document, send email to <a href="/about/people/greve/">Georg
|
|
C.F. Greve</a> <a
|
|
href="mailto:greve@fsfe.org">greve@fsfe.org</a>, comments
|
|
and questions welcome.</p>
|
|
|
|
</body>
|
|
|
|
</html>
|
|
<!--
|
|
Local Variables: ***
|
|
mode: xml ***
|
|
End: ***
|
|
-->
|