first

1 files changed, 323 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/docs/applying-free-sw-criteria.md b/docs/applying-free-sw-criteria.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3f1560e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/applying-free-sw-criteria.md
@@ -0,0 +1,323 @@
+---
+Generator: 'texi2html 1.82'
+description: Untitled Document
+distribution: global
+keywords: Untitled Document
+resource-type: document
+title: Untitled Document
+...
+
+1. Applying the Free Software Criteria {#applying-the-free-software-criteria .chapter}
+======================================
+
+The four essential freedoms provide the criteria for whether a
+particular piece of code is free/libre (i.e., respects its users’
+freedom).[(1)](#FOOT1) How should we apply them to judge whether a
+software package, an operating system, a computer, or a web page is fit
+to recommend?
+
+Whether a program is free affects first of all our decisions about our
+private activities: to maintain our freedom, we need to reject the
+programs that would take it away. However, it also affects what we
+should say to others and do with others.
+
+A nonfree program is an injustice. To distribute a nonfree program, to
+recommend a nonfree program to other people, or more generally steer
+them into a course that leads to using nonfree software, means leading
+them to give up their freedom. To be sure, leading people to use nonfree
+software is not the same as installing nonfree software in their
+computers, but we should not lead people in the wrong direction.
+
+At a deeper level, we must not present a nonfree program as a solution
+because that would grant it legitimacy. Non-free software is a problem;
+to present it as a solution denies the existence of the
+problem.[(2)](#FOOT2)
+
+This article explains how we apply the basic free software criteria to
+judging various kinds of things, so we can decide whether to recommend
+them or not.
+
+### Software Packages {#software-packages .subheading}
+
+For a software package to be free, all the code in it must be free. But
+not only the code. Since documentation files including manuals, README,
+change log, and so on are essential technical parts of a software
+package, they must be free as well.[(3)](#FOOT3) A software package is
+typically used alongside many other packages, and interacts with some of
+them. Which kinds of interaction with nonfree programs are ethically
+acceptable?
+
+@firstcopyingnotice{{@footnoterule @smallskip Copyright © 2015 Richard
+Stallman\
+ This article is part of @fsfsthreecite}
+
+We developed GNU so that there would be a free operating system, because
+in 1983 none existed. As we developed the initial components of GNU, in
+the 1980s, it was inevitable that each component depended on nonfree
+software. For instance, no C program could run without a nonfree C
+compiler until GCC was working, and none could run without Unix libc
+until glibc was working. Each component could run only on nonfree
+systems, because all systems were nonfree.
+
+After we released a component that could run on some nonfree systems,
+users ported it to other nonfree systems; those ports were no worse,
+ethically, than the platform-specific code we needed to develop these
+components, so we incorporated their patches.
+
+When the kernel, Linux, was freed in 1992, it filled the last gap in the
+GNU system. (Initially, in 1991, Linux had been distributed under a
+nonfree license.) The combination of GNU and Linux made a complete free
+operating system—GNU/Linux.[(4)](#FOOT4)
+
+At that point, we could have deleted the support for nonfree platforms,
+but we decided not to. A nonfree system is an injustice, but it’s not
+our fault a user runs one. Supporting a free program on that system does
+not compound the injustice. And it’s useful, not only for users of those
+systems, but also for attracting more people to contribute to developing
+the free program.
+
+However, a nonfree program that runs on top of a free program is a
+completely different issue, because it leads users to take a step away
+from freedom. In some cases we disallow this: for instance, GCC
+prohibits nonfree plug-ins.[(5)](#FOOT5) When a program permits nonfree
+add-ons, it should at least not steer people towards using them. For
+instance, we choose LibreOffice over OpenOffice because OpenOffice
+suggests use of nonfree add-ons, while LibreOffice shuns them. We
+developed IceCat[(6)](#FOOT6) initially to avoid proposing the nonfree
+add-ons suggested by Firefox.
+
+In practice, if the IceCat package explains how to run IceCat on MacOS,
+that will not lead people to run MacOS. But if it talked about some
+nonfree add-on, that would encourage IceCat users to install the add-on.
+Therefore, the IceCat package, including manuals and web site, shouldn’t
+talk about such things.
+
+Sometimes a free program and a nonfree program interoperate but neither
+is based on the other. Our rule for such cases is that if the nonfree
+program is very well known, we should tell people how to use our free
+program with it; but if the proprietary program is obscure, we should
+not hint that it exists. Sometimes we support interoperation with the
+nonfree program if that is installed, but avoid telling users about the
+possibility of doing so.
+
+We reject “enhancements” that would work only on a nonfree system. Those
+would encourage people to use the nonfree system instead of GNU, scoring
+an own-goal.
+
+### GNU/Linux Distros {#gnulinux-distros .subheading}
+
+After the liberation of Linux in 1992, people began developing GNU/Linux
+distributions (“distros”). Only a few distros are entirely free
+software.
+
+The rules for a software package apply to a distro too: an ethical
+distro must contain only free software and steer users only towards free
+software. But what does it mean for a distro to “contain” a particular
+software package?
+
+Some distros install programs from binary packages that are part of the
+distro; others build each program from upstream source, and literally
+*contain* only the recipes to download and build it. For issues of
+freedom, how a distro installs a given package is not significant; if it
+presents that package as an option, or its web site does, we say it
+“contains” that package.
+
+The users of a free system have control over it, so they can install
+whatever they wish. Free distros provide general facilities with which
+users can install their own programs and their modified versions of free
+programs; they can also install nonfree programs. Providing these
+general facilities is not an ethical flaw in the distro, because the
+distro’s developers are not responsible for what users get and install
+on their own initiative.
+
+The developers become responsible for installation of nonfree software
+when they steer the users toward a nonfree program—for instance, by
+putting it in the distro’s list of packages, or distributing it from
+their server, or presenting it as a solution rather than a problem. This
+is the point where most GNU/Linux distros have an ethical flaw.
+
+People who install software packages on their own have a certain level
+of sophistication: if we tell them “Baby contains nonfree code, but
+Gbaby is free,” we can expect them to take care to remember which is
+which. But distros are recommended to ordinary users who would forget
+such details. They would think, “What name did they say I should use? I
+think it was Baby.”
+
+Therefore, to recommend a distro to the general public, we insist that
+its name not be similar to a distro we reject, so our message
+recommending only the free distro can be reliably transmitted.
+
+Another difference between a distro and a software package is how likely
+it is for nonfree code to be added. The developers of a program
+carefully check the code they add. If they have decided to make the
+program free, they are unlikely to add nonfree code. There have been
+exceptions, including the very harmful case of the “binary blobs” that
+were added to Linux, but they are a small fraction of the free programs
+that exist.
+
+By contrast, a GNU/Linux distro typically contains thousands of
+packages, and the distro’s developers may add hundreds of packages a
+year. Without a careful effort to avoid packages that contain some
+nonfree software, some will surely creep in. Since the free distros are
+few in number, as a condition for listing that distro, we ask the
+developers of each free distro to make a commitment to keep the distro
+free software by removing any nonfree code or malware. See the GNU free
+system distribution guidelines, at
+<http://gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html>.
+
+We don’t ask for such promises for free software packages: it’s not
+feasible, and fortunately not necessary. To get promises from the
+developers of 30,000 free programs to keep them free would avoid a few
+problems, at the cost of much work for the FSF staff; in addition, most
+of those developers have no relationship with the GNU Project and might
+have no interest in making us any promises. So we deal with the rare
+cases that change from free to nonfree, when we find out about them.
+
+### Peripherals {#peripherals .subheading}
+
+A computer peripheral needs software in the computer—perhaps a driver,
+perhaps firmware to be loaded by the system into the peripheral to make
+it run. Thus, a peripheral is acceptable to use and recommend if it can
+be used from a computer that has no nonfree software installed—if the
+peripheral’s driver, and any firmware that the system needs to load into
+it, are free.
+
+It is simple to check this: connect the peripheral to a computer running
+a totally free GNU/Linux distro and see if it works. But most users
+would like to know *before* they buy the peripheral, so we list
+information about many peripherals in [h-node.org](h-node.org), a
+hardware database for fully free operating systems.
+
+### Computers {#computers .subheading}
+
+A computer contains software at various levels. On what criterion should
+we certify that a computer “Respects Your Freedom”?
+
+Obviously the operating system and everything above it must be free. In
+the 90s, the startup software (BIOS, then) became replaceable, and since
+it runs on the CPU, it is the same sort of issue as the operating
+system. Thus, programs such as firmware and drivers that are installed
+in or with the system or the startup software must be free.
+
+If a computer has hardware features that require nonfree drivers or
+firmware installed with the system, we may be able to endorse it. If it
+is usable without those features, and if we think most people won’t be
+led to install the nonfree software to make them function, then we can
+endorse it. Otherwise, we can’t. This will be a judgment call.
+
+A computer can have modifiable preinstalled firmware and microcode at
+lower levels. It can also have code in true read-only memory. We decided
+to ignore these programs in our certification criteria today, because
+otherwise no computer could comply, and because firmware that is not
+normally changed is ethically equivalent to circuits. So our
+certification criteria cover only the code that runs on the computer’s
+main processor and is not in true read-only memory. When and as free
+software becomes possible for other levels of processing, we will
+require free software at those levels too.
+
+Since certifying a product is active promotion of it, we insist that the
+seller support us in return, by talking about free software rather than
+open source[(7)](#FOOT7) and referring to the combination of GNU and
+Linux as “GNU/Linux.”[(8)](#FOOT8) We have no obligation to actively
+promote projects that won’t recognize our work and support our movement.
+
+See <http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement/criteria> for our
+certification criteria.
+
+### Web Pages {#web-pages .subheading}
+
+Nowadays many web pages contain complex JavaScript programs and won’t
+work without them. This is a harmful practice since it hampers users’
+control over their computing. Furthermore, most of these programs are
+nonfree, an injustice. Often the JavaScript code spies on the
+user.[(9)](#FOOT9) JavaScript has morphed into a attack on users’
+freedom.
+
+To address this problem, we have developed LibreJS, an add-on for
+Firefox that blocks nontrivial nonfree JavaScript code. (There is no
+need to block the simple scripts that implement minor user interface
+hacks.) We ask sites to please free their JavaScript programs and mark
+their licenses for LibreJS to recognize.
+
+Meanwhile, is it ethical to link to a web page that contains a nonfree
+JavaScript program? If we were totally unyielding, we would link only to
+free JavaScript code. However, many pages do work even when their
+JavaScript code is not run. Also, you will most often encounter nonfree
+JavaScript in other ways besides following our links; to avoid it, you
+must use LibreJS or disable JavaScript. So we have decided to go ahead
+and link to pages that work without nonfree JavaScript, while urging
+users to protect themselves from nonfree JavaScript in general.
+
+However, if a page can’t do its job without running the nonfree
+JavaScript code, linking to it undeniably asks people to run that
+nonfree code. On principle, we do not link to such pages.
+
+### Conclusion {#conclusion .subheading}
+
+Applying the basic idea that *software should be free* to different
+situations leads to different practical policies. As new situations
+arise, the GNU Project and the Free Software Foundation will adapt our
+freedom criteria so as to lead computer users towards freedom, in
+practice and in principle. By recommending only freedom-respecting
+programs, distros, and hardware products, and stating your policy, you
+can give much-needed support to the free software movement.
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+### Footnotes
+
+### [(1)](#DOCF1)
+
+@raggedright See @pageref{Definition} for the full definition of free
+software. @end raggedright
+
+### [(2)](#DOCF2)
+
+@raggedright My article “Avoiding Ruinous Compromises”
+(@pageref{Compromise}) elaborates on this issue. @end raggedright
+
+### [(3)](#DOCF3)
+
+@raggedright See “Free Software Needs Free Documentation” (@pageref{Free
+Doc}) for more on this issue. @end raggedright
+
+### [(4)](#DOCF4)
+
+@raggedright See “Linux and the GNU System” (@pageref{Linux and GNU})
+for information. @end raggedright
+
+### [(5)](#DOCF5)
+
+@raggedright For the reason why GCC prohibits nonfree plug-ins, see my
+response on the GCC mailing list, at
+<https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00247.html>. @end raggedright
+
+### [(6)](#DOCF6)
+
+@raggedright See <http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/IceCat>. @end
+raggedright
+
+### [(7)](#DOCF7)
+
+@raggedright See “Free Software Is Even More Important Now”
+(@pageref{More Important Now}) and “Why Open Source Misses the Point of
+Free Software” (@pageref{OS Misses Point}). @end raggedright
+
+### [(8)](#DOCF8)
+
+@raggedright See “What’s in a Name” (@pageref{Whats Name}). @end
+raggedright
+
+### [(9)](#DOCF9)
+
+@raggedright See “The JavaScript Trap” (@pageref{JavaScript Trap}). @end
+raggedright
+
+</div>
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using
+[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\