Changeset - 52b3058faf90
[Not reviewed]
0 1 0
Bradley Kuhn (bkuhn) - 10 years ago 2014-03-19 17:10:09
bkuhn@ebb.org
This is a useful statement that Fontana added, but it should be a footnote.
1 file changed with 2 insertions and 2 deletions:
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)
gpl-lgpl.tex
Show inline comments
...
 
@@ -234,99 +234,99 @@ software, or to at least follow rote instructions to make basic modifications
 
themselves.
 

	
 
More commonly, users also exercise this freedom commercially.  Each user, or
 
group of users, may hire anyone they wish in a competitive free market to
 
modify and change the software.  This means that companies have a right to
 
hire anyone they wish to modify their Free Software.  Additionally, such
 
companies may contract with other companies to commission software
 
modification.
 

	
 
\subsection{The Freedom to Copy and Share}
 

	
 
Users share Free Software in a variety of ways. Software freedom advocates
 
work to eliminate a fundamental ethical dilemma of the software age: choosing
 
between obeying a software license and friendship (by giving away a copy of a
 
program to your friend who likes the software you are using). Licenses that
 
respect software freedom, therefore, permit altruistic sharing of software
 
among friends.
 

	
 
The commercial environment also benefits of this freedom.  Commercial sharing
 
includes selling copies of Free Software: that is, Free Software can
 
be distribted for any monetary
 
price to anyone.  Those who redistribute Free Software commercially also have
 
the freedom to selectively distribute (i.e., you can pick your customers) and
 
to set prices at any level that redistributor sees fit.
 

	
 
Of course, most people get copies of Free Software very cheaply (and
 
sometimes without charge).  The competitive free market of Free Software
 
tends to keep prices low and reasonable.  However, if someone is willing to
 
pay billions of dollars for one copy of the GNU Compiler Collection, such a
 
sale is completely permitted.
 

	
 
Another common instance of commercial sharing is service-oriented
 
distribution.  For example, some distribution vendors provide immediate
 
security and upgrade distribution via a special network service.  Such
 
distribution is not necessarily contradictory with software freedom.
 

	
 
(Section~\ref{Business Models} of this tutorial talks in detail about some
 
common Free Software business models that take advantage of the freedom to
 
share commercially.)
 

	
 
\subsection{The Freedom to Share Improvements}
 

	
 
The freedom to modify and improve is somewhat empty without the freedom to
 
share those improvements.  The Software freedom community is built on the
 
pillar of altruistic sharing of improved Free Software. Historically
 
it was typical for a
 
Free Software project to sprout a mailing list where improvements
 
would be shared
 
freely among members of the development community.  This is still
 
freely among members of the development community\footnote{This is still
 
commonly the case, though today there are other or additional ways of
 
sharing Free Software. Such noncommercial
 
sharing Free Software.}.   Such noncommercial
 
sharing is the primary reason that Free Software thrives.
 

	
 
Commercial sharing of modified Free Software is equally important.
 
For commercial support to exist in a competitive free market, all
 
developers -- from single-person contractors to large software
 
companies -- must have the freedom to market their services as
 
improvers of Free Software.  All forms of such service marketing must
 
be equally available to all.
 

	
 
For example, selling support services for Free Software is fully
 
permitted. Companies and individuals can offer themselves as ``the place
 
to call'' when software fails or does not function properly.  For such a
 
service to be meaningful, the entity offering that service needs the
 
right to modify and improve the software for the customer to correct any
 
problems that are beyond mere user error.
 

	
 
Software freedom licenses also permit any entity to distribute modified
 
versions of Free Software.  Most Free Software programs have a ``standard
 
version'' that is made available from the primary developers of the software.
 
However, all who have the software have the ``freedom to fork'' -- that is,
 
make available nontrivial modified versions of the software on a permanent or
 
semi-permanent basis.  Such freedom is central to vibrant developer and user
 
interaction.
 

	
 
Companies and individuals have the right to make true value-added versions
 
of Free Software.  They may use freedom to share improvements to
 
distribute distinct versions of Free Software with different functionality
 
and features.  Furthermore, this freedom can be exercised to serve a
 
disenfranchised subset of the user community.  If the developers of the
 
standard version refuse to serve the needs of some of the software's
 
users, other entities have the right to create a long- or short-lived fork
 
to serve that sub-community.
 

	
 
\section{How Does Software Become Free?}
 

	
 
The previous section set forth key freedoms and rights that are referred to
 
as ``software freedom''.  This section discusses the licensing mechanisms
 
used to enable software freedom.  These licensing mechanism were ultimately
 
created as a community-oriented ``answer'' to the existing proprietary
 
software licensing mechanisms.  Thus, first, consider carefully why
 
proprietary software exists in the first place.
 

	
 
Proprietary software exists at all only because it is governed by copyright
 
law.\footnote{This statement is admittedly an oversimplification. Patents and
 
  trade secrets can cover software and make it effectively non-Free, and one
 
  can contract away their rights and freedoms regarding software, or source
 
  code can be practically obscured in binary-only distribution without
 
  reliance on any legal system.  However, the primary control mechanism for
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)