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 2025-04-08 14:44:09 +02:00
parent ee83d8a6b6
commit 362a9efe1f
27 changed files with 2107 additions and 2019 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

15
free_software.md
View file

@ -35,12 +35,23 @@ Software is considered free if all its users have (forever and without possibili
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, 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.
Note that as free software cares about real [freedom](freedom.md), the word "[right](rights_culture.md)" here stands for 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 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) 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.
Any software that is not free (as in freedom) is called **[proprietary](proprietary.md)**, even if it is for example available free of charge. Alas, a lot of confusion surrounds free software terminology, and so let us give a table summarizing some of the key terms:
| type of software |free of charge?|source code available?|use+study+modify+share?|
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------- | -------------------- | --------------------- |
|free (as in freedom), libre, [open source](open_source.md), [FOSS](foss.md)| yes | yes | yes |
| [freeware](freeware.md), gratis, free as in beer | yes | ? | ? |
| [public domain](public_domain.md) | yes | ? | yes |
| source available | ? | yes | ? |
| closed source | ? | no | no |
| [proprietary](proprietary.md) | ? | ? | no |
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).
## Measuring Practical Freedom With Freedom Distance
@ -88,4 +99,4 @@ After some years dealing with software freedom (in serious ways, making money do
- [copyfree](copyfree.md)
- [freedom distance](freedom_distance.md)
- [FreeLore](freelore.md)
- [kosher software](kosher_software.md)
- [kosher software](kosher_software.md)