user is granted the following freedoms:

\begin{itemize}

\teim The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.

\item The freedom to study how the program works, and modify it

\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 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

term ``proprietary software'' is used more or less interchangeably with

``non-Free Software.''  Personally, I tend to use the term ``non-Free

Software'' to refer to noncommercial software that restricts freedom

(such as ``shareware'') and ``proprietary software'' to refer to

commercial software that restricts freedom (such as nearly all of

Microsoft's and Oracle's offerings).

\subsection{The Freedom to Run}

For a program to be Free Software, the freedom to run the program must

be completely unrestricted. This means any use for software the user

can come up with must be permitted. Perhaps, for example, the user

has discovered an innovative use for a particular program, one

that the programmer never could have predicted. Such a use must not

be restricted.

It was once rare that this freedom was restricted by even proprietary

software; today it is not so rare. Most End User Licensing Agreements

(EULAs) that cover most proprietary software restrict some types of

use.  For example, some versions of Microsoft's FrontPage software

prohibit use of the software to create Web sites that generate

negative publicity for Microsoft. Free Software has no such

restrictions; everyone is free to use Free Software for any purpose

whatsoever.

\subsection{The Freedom to Change and Modify}

Free Software programs allow users to change, modify and adapt the

software to suit their needs. Access to the source code and related build

scripts are an essential part of this freedom. Without the source code

and the ability to build the binary applications from that source, the

freedom cannot be properly exercised.

Programmers can take direct benefit from this freedom, and often do.

However, this freedom is also important to users who are not programmers.

Users must have the right to exercise this freedom indirectly in both

commercial and noncommercial settings. For example, users often seek

noncommercial help with the software on email lists and in users groups.

When they find such help, they must have the freedom to recruit

programmers who might altruistically assist them to modify their software.

The commercial exercise of this freedom is also essential for users. Each

user, or group of users, must have the right to 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 may share Free Software in a variety of ways. Free Software

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