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 2024-03-30 00:11:50 +01:00
parent 860b62cc6a
commit 24de580085
28 changed files with 1861 additions and 1725 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

8
free_software.md
View file

@ -20,18 +20,18 @@ Though unknown to common people, the invention and adoption of free software has
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) or [copyfree](copyfree.md) and so nowadays there isn't just one definition, even though the GNU definition is usually implicitly assumed. However, all of these definition are very similar and are quite often 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 legal and [de facto](de_facto.md) rights to:
Software is considered free if all its users have (forever and without possibility of revoking) the legal and [de facto](de_facto.md) rights to:
0. Use the software for any purpose (even commercial or that somehow deemed unethical by someone).
1. Study the software. For this source code of the program has to be available.
2. Share the software with anyone.
3. Modify the software. For this source code of the program has to be available. This modified version can also be shared with anyone.
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.
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, truly free software communities will address them. Again, open source differs here by just focusing on legality, i.e. open source only cares about technically adhering to legalese while ignoring everything else.
To make it clear, freedom 0 (use for any purpose) covers ANY use, even commercial use or use deemed unethical by society of the software creator. Some people try to restrict this freedom, e.g. by prohibiting use for military purposes or prohibiting use by "fascists", which makes the software NOT free anymore. NEVER DO THIS. The reasoning behind freedom 0 is the same as that behind [free speech](free_speech.md): allowing any use doesn't imply endorsing or supporting any use, it simply means that we refuse to engage in certain kinds of oppression our of principle. Trying to mess with freedom 0 would be similar to e.g. prohibiting [science](science.md) on the ground of the fact that scientific results can be used in unethical ways -- we simply don't do this. We try to prevent unethical behavior in other ways than prohibiting basic rights.
To make it clear, freedom 0 (use for any purpose) covers ANY use, even commercial use or use deemed unethical by society or the software creator. Some people try to restrict this freedom, e.g. by prohibiting use for military purposes or prohibiting use by "fascists", which makes the software NOT free anymore. NEVER DO THIS. The reasoning behind freedom 0 is the same as that behind [free speech](free_speech.md) or freedom of research: allowing any use doesn't imply endorsing or supporting any use, it simply means that we refuse to engage in certain kinds of oppression out of principle. Creator of software shouldn't be the authority deciding how the software can be used just as a scientist mustn't be the authority who decides how his discoveries will be used. We simply don't do this -- to address "wrong" use of technology is a matter of different disciplines such as philosophy.
[Source code](source_code.md) here means the preferred form in which software is modified, i.e. things such as [obfuscated](obfuscation.md) source code don't count as true source code.
[Source code](source_code.md) is usually defined as the preferred form in which the software is modified, i.e. things such as [obfuscated](obfuscation.md), [minified](minification.md) or compiled source code don't count as true source code.
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)), respecting also [free culture](free_culture.md), which GNU doesn't ([source](https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.en.html#non-functional-data)). The definition of "[open source](open_source.md)" is yet more complex even though in practice legally free software is eventually also open source and vice versa. The [copyfree](copyfree.md) definition tries to be a lot more strict about freedom and forbids for example [copyleft](copyleft.md) (which GNU promotes) and things such as [DRM](drm.md) clauses (i.e. a copyfree license mustn't impose technology restrictions, even those seen as "justified", for similar reasons why we don't prohibit any kind of use for example).