drummyfish/less_retarded_wiki
5
1
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity

Update

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Miloslav Ciz 2022-08-30 20:24:47 +02:00
parent 3008c5da7e
commit 1b3ff89587
10 changed files with 63 additions and 66 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

10
free_software.md
View file

@ -4,11 +4,13 @@ Free (as in freedom) software is a type of [software](software.md) that's respec
Free software is also known as *free as in freedom* or *free as in speech* software. It is sometimes equated with [open source](open_source.md), even though open source is fundamentally different, or neutrally labelled FOSS (free and open-source software). Software that is gratis is sometimes called *free as in beer*.
**Is free software [communism](communism.md)?** This is a question often debated by [Americans](usa.md) who have a panic phobia of anything resembling ideas of sharing and giving away for free. The answer is: yes and no. No as in it's not [Marxism](marxism.md), the kind of [evil](evil.md) pseudocommunism that plagued Europe not long ago -- that was a hugely complex, twisted violent ideology encompassing whole society which furthermore betrayed many basic ideas of equality and so on. Compared to this free software is just a simple idea of not applying intellectual property to software, and this idea may well function under some form of early capitalism. But on the other hand yes, free software is communism in its general form that simply says sharing is good and sometimes necessary, it is communism as much e.g. charity or teaching a kid to share toys with its siblings.
[Richard Stallman](rms.md), the inventor of the concept and the term "free software", says free software is about ensuring the freedom of computer users, i.e. people truly owning their tools -- he points out that unless people have complete control over their tools, they don't truly own them and will instead become controlled and abused by the makers (true owners) of those tools, which in [capitalism](capitalism.md) are [corporations](corporation.md). Richard Stallman stressed that **there is no such thing as partially free software** -- it takes only a single line of code to take away the user's freedom and therefore if software is to be free, it has to be free as a whole. This is in direct contrast with [open source](open_source.md) which happily tolerates for example [Windows](windows.md) only programs and accepts them as "open source", even though such a program cannot be run without the underlying proprietary code of the platform.
**Is free software [communism](communism.md)?** This is a question often debated by [Americans](usa.md) who have a panic phobia of anything resembling ideas of sharing and giving away for free. The answer is: yes and no. No as in it's not [Marxism](marxism.md), the kind of [evil](evil.md) pseudocommunism that plagued Europe not a long time long ago -- that was a hugely complex, twisted violent ideology encompassing whole society which furthermore betrayed many basic ideas of equality and so on. Compared to this free software is just a simple idea of not applying intellectual property to software, and this idea may well function under some form of early capitalism. But on the other hand yes, free software is communism in its general form that simply states that sharing is good, it is communism as much e.g. charity or teaching a kid to share toys with its siblings.
# Definition
Free software was originally defined by [Richard Stallman](rms.md) for his [GNU](gnu.md) project. The definition was subsequently adjusted by other groups such as Debian and so nowadays there isn't a completely solid definition. However, all of these definition are very similar and are basically variations and subsets of the original one. The GNU definition of free software is paraphrased as follows:
Free software was originally defined by [Richard Stallman](rms.md) for his [GNU](gnu.md) project. The definition was subsequently adopted and adjusted by other groups such as [Debian](debian.md) and so nowadays there isn't just one definition, even though the GNU definition is usually implicitly supposed. However, all of these definition are very similar and are basically variations and subsets of the original one. The GNU definition of free software is paraphrased as follows:
Software is considered free if all its users have the rights to:
@ -17,7 +19,9 @@ Software is considered free if all its users have the rights to:
2. Share the software with anyone.
3. Modify the software. This modified version can also be shared with anyone.
The developers of Debian operating system have created their own guidelines (Debian Free Software Guidelines) which respect these points but are worded in more complex terms and further require e.g. non-functional data to be available under free terms as well ([source](https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html#not_just_code)) which GNU doesn't ([source](https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.en.html#non-functional-data)). The definition of open source is yet more complex even though in practice free software is eventually also open source and vice versa.
Note that as free software cares about real freedom, the word "right" here is seen as meaning a [de facto](de_facto.md) right, i.e. NOT just a legal right -- legal rights (a free [license](license.md)) are required but if there appears a non-legal obstacle to those freedoms, free software communities will address them. Again, open source differs here by just focusing on legality.
The developers of Debian operating system have created their own guidelines (Debian Free Software Guidelines) which respect these points but are worded in more complex terms and further require e.g. non-functional data to be available under free terms as well ([source](https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html#not_just_code)) which GNU doesn't ([source](https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.en.html#non-functional-data)). The definition of open source is yet more complex even though in practice legally free software is eventually also open source and vice versa.
# History