Files
fsfe-website/documents/freesoftware.xhtml
greve e0d0ea1f08 okay, experiment successful
svn path=/trunk/; revision=3709
2004-01-13 11:18:00 +00:00

195 lines
7.3 KiB
HTML

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
<!DOCTYPE html
PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html lang="en">
<head>
<title>FSF Europe - What is Free Software?</title>
</head>
<body>
<div> <!-- The header will be inserted here -->
<!-- Begin page content -->
<div align="center">
<h2>What is Free Software?</h2>
</div>
<p>Free in
Free Software is referring to freedom, not price. Having been used in
this meaning since the 80s, the first documented complete definition appears to
be the GNU's Bulletin, vol. 1
no. 6<A NAME="tex2html1"
HREF="#foot47"><SUP>1</SUP></A>,
published January 1989. In particular, four freedoms define<A NAME="tex2html3"
HREF="#foot48"><SUP>2</SUP></A> Free Software:</p>
<ul>
<li><B>The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.</B>
<br />
<br />
<em>Placing restrictions on the use of Free Software, such as time
(``30 days trial period'', ``license expires January 1st, 2004'')
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><br />
<li><B>The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to
your needs.</B>
<br />
<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 - for
programming languages that have multiple forms or representation
- making the preferred human way of comprehending and editing a
program (``source code'') inaccessible also makes it
proprietary (non-free). Without the freedom to modify a program, people will
remain at the mercy of a single vendor.</em>
</li><br />
<li><B>The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your
neighbor.</B>
<br />
<br />
<em>Software can be copied/distributed at virtually no cost. If you are
not allowed to give a program to a person in need, that makes a
program non-free. This can be done for a charge, if you so
choose.</em>
</li><br />
<li><B>The freedom to improve the program, and release your
improvements to the public, so that the whole community
benefits.</B>
<br />
<br />
<em>Not everyone is an equally good programmer in all fields. Some
people don't know how to program at all. This freedom allows those
who do not have the time or skills to solve a problem to
indirectly access the freedom to modify. This can be done for a
charge.</em>
</li>
</ul>
<p>These freedoms are rights, not obligations, although respecting
these freedoms for society may at times oblige the individual. Any
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 at least 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>
<br />
<br />
<hr />
<br />
<h3>Terminology</h3>
<p>English seems to be the only language in which such a strong
ambiguity exists between freedom and price. When translated into
other languages, Free Software becomes ``logiciels libre'' in French,
``software libre'' in Spanish, ``software libero'' in Portugese, ``Fri
Software'' in Danish or whatever is the equivalent term in the local
language referring to freedom.</p>
<br />
<b>Open Source</b><br />
<p>On February 3rd 1998, in the wake of Netscapes
announcement to release their browser as Free Software, a group of
people met in Palo Alto in the Silicon Valley and proposed to start a
marketing campaign for Free Software using the term ``Open Source.'' The
goal was to seek fast commercialization of Free Software and acceptance
of Free Software by the companies and venture capitalists of the booming
new economy. As a means to this end, they made a conscious decision to
leave aside all long-term issues (such as philosophy, ethics and social
effects) related to Free Software, feeling these posed obstacles in the
way of rapid acceptance by economy. They proposed to focus on technical
advantages only.<A NAME="tex2html5"
HREF="#foot49"><SUP>3</SUP></A></p>
<p>Often used in good faith by people who refer to what Free
Software stands for, the term ``Open Source'' - originally defined to
mean the same thing as Free Software in terms of licenses and
implementation - has seen inflationary usage. Nowadays, it is
regularly used for everything between Free Software and the highly
proprietary ``Governmental Security Program'' (GSP) by
Microsoft.<A NAME="tex2html7"
HREF="#foot32"><SUP>4</SUP></A></p>
<p>For more information about the issue, please also see the "<a
href="/documents/whyfs.html">We speak about Free Software</a>"
campaign.</p>
<br />
<b>Libre Software</b><br />
<p>
When the European Commission started dealing with
Free Software on a regular basis, they sought to avoid the ambiguity of
the English word ``Free Software'' and the misunderstandings of ``Open
Source'' alike, which led to the creation of a new term: ``Libre
Software.'' This term has proven resistant to inflationary usage and is
still used in an identical way to Free Software. So it may pose a
solution for those who fear being misunderstood when speaking
English.</p>
<br />
<br />
<hr />
<DL />
<DT /><A NAME="foot47">...
no. 6</A><A NAME="foot47"
HREF="#tex2html1"><SUP>1</SUP></A>
<DD /><TT><A NAME="tex2html2"
HREF="http://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull6.html">http://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull6.html</A></TT><br />
<DT /><A NAME="foot48">... define</A><A NAME="foot48"
HREF="#tex2html3"><SUP>2</SUP></A>
<DD />For
the full definition, please see
<TT><A NAME="tex2html4"
HREF="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html">http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html</A></TT><br />
<DT /><A NAME="foot49">... only.</A><A NAME="foot49"
HREF="#tex2html5"><SUP>3</SUP></A>
<DD />For reference, see
<TT><A NAME="tex2html6"
HREF="http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/faq.html">http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/faq.html</A></TT>: <EM>How is ''open
source'' related to ''free software''? The Open Source Initiative is a
marketing program for free software. It's a pitch for ''free software''
on solid pragmatic grounds rather than ideological tub-thumping. The
winning substance has not changed, the losing attitude and symbolism
have.</EM> <br />
<DT /><A NAME="foot32">...
Microsoft.</A><A NAME="foot32"
HREF="#tex2html7"><SUP>4</SUP></A>
<DD />In this program governments and intergovernmental
organizations pay substantial fees for a superficial look at some parts
of Windows sourcecode in special Microsoft facilities. This may increase
``felt security'' but is essentially useless - especially since they do
not even know whether what they looked at is what they have on their
computers. And of course it does not give them freedom.<br />
<!-- End page content -->
</div> <!-- The footer will be inserted here -->
Last update:
<!-- timestamp start -->
$Date$ $Author$
<!-- timestamp end -->
</body>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->