From ed6fe59dfc88029e00f44d36aab28ebb9f692cbc 2014-03-15 16:28:05 From: Bradley M. Kuhn Date: 2014-03-15 16:28:05 Subject: [PATCH] Updates to the Free Software Definition section. --- diff --git a/gpl-lgpl.tex b/gpl-lgpl.tex index d367216370d466f20522d4f01d234b3dc6a1183d..556588add3a66a647b7659ed68a422c1732750e2 100644 --- a/gpl-lgpl.tex +++ b/gpl-lgpl.tex @@ -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\@. - -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. - -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. +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\@. + +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. + +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