first

1 files changed, 325 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/docs/free-sw.md b/docs/free-sw.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9b17ecb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/free-sw.md
@@ -0,0 +1,325 @@
+---
+Generator: 'texi2html 1.82'
+description: Untitled Document
+distribution: global
+keywords: Untitled Document
+resource-type: document
+title: Untitled Document
+...
+
+1. What Is Free Software? {#what-is-free-software .chapter}
+=========================
+
+### The Free Software Definition {#the-free-software-definition .subheading}
+
+> The free software definition presents the criteria for whether a
+> particular software program qualifies as free software. From time to
+> time we revise this definition, to clarify it or to resolve questions
+> about subtle issues. For a list of the changes we’ve made to the
+> definition of free software, please see the “History” section,
+> following the definition, at <http://gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html>.
+
+“Free software” means software that respects users’ freedom and
+community. Roughly, it means that **the users have the freedom to run,
+copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software.** Thus, “free
+software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept,
+you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer.”
+We sometimes call it “libre software” to show we do not mean it is
+gratis.
+
+We campaign for these freedoms because everyone deserves them. With
+these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control
+the program and what it does for them. When users don’t control the
+program, we call it a “nonfree” or “proprietary” program. The nonfree
+program controls the users, and the developer controls the program; this
+makes the program an instrument of unjust power.[(1)](#FOOT1)
+
+@firstcopyingnotice{{@footnoterule@smallskip Copyright © 1996–2002,
+2004–2007, 2009–2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc.\
+ {The free software definition was first published in 1996, on
+<http://gnu.org>. This version is part of @fsfsthreecite}
+
+A program is free software if the program’s users have the four
+essential freedoms:
+
+-   The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any
+    purpose (freedom 0).
+-   The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does
+    your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is
+    a precondition for this.
+-   The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your
+    neighbor (freedom 2).
+-   The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to
+    others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a
+    chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a
+    precondition for this.
+
+A program is free software if it gives users adequately all of these
+freedoms. Otherwise, it is nonfree. While we can distinguish various
+nonfree distribution schemes in terms of how far they fall short of
+being free, we consider them all equally unethical.
+
+In any given scenario, these freedoms must apply to whatever code we
+plan to make use of, or lead others to make use of. For instance,
+consider a program A which automatically launches a program B to handle
+some cases. If we plan to distribute A as it stands, that implies users
+will need B, so we need to judge whether both A and B are free. However,
+if we plan to modify A so that it doesn’t use B, only A needs to be
+free; we can ignore B.
+
+The rest of this page clarifies certain points about what makes specific
+freedoms adequate or not.
+
+Freedom to distribute (freedoms 2 and 3) means you are free to
+redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis
+or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do
+these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or
+pay for permission to do so.
+
+You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them
+privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they
+exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to
+notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.
+
+The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person
+or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind
+of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about
+it with the developer or any other specific entity. In this freedom, it
+is the *user’s* purpose that matters, not the *developer’s* purpose; you
+as a user are free to run the program for your purposes, and if you
+distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it for her
+purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her.
+
+The freedom to run the program as you wish means that you are not
+forbidden or stopped from doing so. It has nothing to do with what
+functionality the program has, or whether it is useful for what you want
+to do.
+
+The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable
+forms of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and
+unmodified versions. (Distributing programs in runnable form is
+necessary for conveniently installable free operating systems.) It is OK
+if there is no way to produce a binary or executable form for a certain
+program (since some languages don’t support that feature), but you must
+have the freedom to redistribute such forms should you find or develop a
+way to make them.
+
+In order for freedoms 1 and 3 (the freedom to make changes and the
+freedom to publish the changed versions) to be meaningful, you must have
+access to the source code of the program. Therefore, accessibility of
+source code is a necessary condition for free software. Obfuscated
+“source code” is not real source code and does not count as source code.
+
+Freedom 1 includes the freedom to use your changed version in place of
+the original. If the program is delivered in a product designed to run
+someone else’s modified versions but refuse to run yours—a practice
+known as “tivoization” or “lockdown,” or (in its practitioners’ perverse
+terminology) as “secure boot”—freedom 1 becomes an empty pretense rather
+than a practical reality. These binaries are not free software even if
+the source code they are compiled from is free.
+
+One important way to modify a program is by merging in available free
+subroutines and modules. If the program’s license says that you cannot
+merge in a suitably licensed existing module—for instance, if it
+requires you to be the copyright holder of any code you add—then the
+license is too restrictive to qualify as free.
+
+Freedom 3 includes the freedom to release your modified versions as free
+software. A free license may also permit other ways of releasing them;
+in other words, it does not have to be a copyleft license. However, a
+license that requires modified versions to be nonfree does not qualify
+as a free license.
+
+In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be permanent and
+irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the
+software has the power to revoke the license, or retroactively add
+restrictions to its terms, without your doing anything wrong to give
+cause, the software is not free.
+
+However, certain kinds of rules about the manner of distributing free
+software are acceptable, when they don’t conflict with the central
+freedoms. For example, copyleft (very simply stated) is the rule that
+when redistributing the program, you cannot add restrictions to deny
+other people the central freedoms. This rule does not conflict with the
+central freedoms; rather it protects them.
+
+In the GNU Project, we use copyleft to protect the four freedoms legally
+for everyone. We believe there are important reasons why it is better to
+use copyleft. However, noncopylefted free software is ethical too. See
+“Categories of Free Software” (@pageref{Categories}) for a description
+of how “free software,” “copylefted software” and other categories of
+software relate to each other.
+
+“Free software” does not mean “noncommercial.” A free program must be
+available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial
+distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer
+unusual; such free commercial software is very important. You may have
+paid money to get copies of free software, or you may have obtained
+copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you
+always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell
+copies.
+
+Whether a change constitutes an improvement is a subjective matter. If
+your right to modify a program is limited, in substance, to changes that
+someone else considers an improvement, that program is not free.
+
+However, rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable,
+if they don’t substantively limit your freedom to release modified
+versions, or your freedom to make and use modified versions privately.
+Thus, it is acceptable for the license to require that you change the
+name of the modified version, remove a logo, or identify your
+modifications as yours. As long as these requirements are not so
+burdensome that they effectively hamper you from releasing your changes,
+they are acceptable; you’re already making other changes to the program,
+so you won’t have trouble making a few more.
+
+Rules that “if you make your version available in this way, you must
+make it available in that way also” can be acceptable too, on the same
+condition. An example of such an acceptable rule is one saying that if
+you have distributed a modified version and a previous developer asks
+for a copy of it, you must send one. (Note that such a rule still leaves
+you the choice of whether to distribute your version at all.) Rules that
+require release of source code to the users for versions that you put
+into public use are also acceptable.
+
+A special issue arises when a license requires changing the name by
+which the program will be invoked from other programs. That effectively
+hampers you from releasing your changed version so that it can replace
+the original when invoked by those other programs. This sort of
+requirement is acceptable only if there’s a suitable aliasing facility
+that allows you to specify the original program’s name as an alias for
+the modified version.
+
+Sometimes government export control regulations and trade sanctions can
+constrain your freedom to distribute copies of programs internationally.
+Software developers do not have the power to eliminate or override these
+restrictions, but what they can and must do is refuse to impose them as
+conditions of use of the program. In this way, the restrictions will not
+affect activities and people outside the jurisdictions of these
+governments. Thus, free software licenses must not require obedience to
+any nontrivial export regulations as a condition of exercising any of
+the essential freedoms.
+
+Merely mentioning the existence of export regulations, without making
+them a condition of the license itself, is acceptable since it does not
+restrict users. If an export regulation is actually trivial for free
+software, then requiring it as a condition is not an actual problem;
+however, it is a potential problem, since a later change in export law
+could make the requirement nontrivial and thus render the software
+nonfree.
+
+A free license may not require compliance with the license of a nonfree
+program. Thus, for instance, if a license requires you to comply with
+the licenses of “all the programs you use,” in the case of a user that
+runs nonfree programs this would require compliance with the licenses of
+those nonfree programs; that makes the license nonfree.
+
+It is acceptable for a free license to specify which jurisdiction’s law
+applies, or where litigation must be done, or both.
+
+Most free software licenses are based on copyright, and there are limits
+on what kinds of requirements can be imposed through copyright. If a
+copyright-based license respects freedom in the ways described above, it
+is unlikely to have some other sort of problem that we never anticipated
+(though this does happen occasionally). However, some free software
+licenses are based on contracts, and contracts can impose a much larger
+range of possible restrictions. That means there are many possible ways
+such a license could be unacceptably restrictive and nonfree.
+
+We can’t possibly list all the ways that might happen. If a
+contract-based license restricts the user in an unusual way that
+copyright-based licenses cannot, and which isn’t mentioned here as
+legitimate, we will have to think about it, and we will probably
+conclude it is nonfree.
+
+When talking about free software, it is best to avoid using terms like
+“give away” or “for free,” because those terms imply that the issue is
+about price, not freedom. Some common terms such as “piracy” embody
+opinions we hope you won’t endorse. See “Words to Avoid (or Use with
+Care) Because They Are Loaded or Confusing” (@pageref{Words to Avoid})
+for a discussion of these terms. We also have a list of proper
+translations of “free software” into various languages
+(@pageref{Appendix B}).
+
+Finally, note that criteria such as those stated in this free software
+definition require careful thought for their interpretation. To decide
+whether a specific software license qualifies as a free software
+license, we judge it based on these criteria to determine whether it
+fits their spirit as well as the precise words. If a license includes
+unconscionable restrictions, we reject it, even if we did not anticipate
+the issue in these criteria. Sometimes a license requirement raises an
+issue that calls for extensive thought, including discussions with a
+lawyer, before we can decide if the requirement is acceptable. When we
+reach a conclusion about a new issue, we often update these criteria to
+make it easier to see why certain licenses do or don’t qualify.
+
+If you are interested in whether a specific license qualifies as a free
+software license, see our list of licenses, at
+<http://gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html>. If the license you are
+concerned with is not listed there, you can ask us about it by sending
+us email at <licensing@gnu.org>.
+
+If you are contemplating writing a new license, please contact the Free
+Software Foundation first by writing to that address. The proliferation
+of different free software licenses means increased work for users in
+understanding the licenses; we may be able to help you find an existing
+free software license that meets your needs.
+
+If that isn’t possible, if you really need a new license, with our help
+you can ensure that the license really is a free software license and
+avoid various practical problems.
+
+### Beyond Software {#beyond-software .subheading}
+
+Software manuals must be free,[(2)](#FOOT2) for the same reasons that
+software must be free, and because the manuals are in effect part of the
+software.
+
+The same arguments also make sense for other kinds of works of practical
+use—that is to say, works that embody useful knowledge, such as
+educational works and reference works. Wikipedia is the best-known
+example.
+
+Any kind of work *can* be free, and the definition of free software has
+been extended to a definition of free cultural works[(3)](#FOOT3)
+applicable to any kind of works.
+
+### Open Source? {#open-source .subheading}
+
+Another group users the term “open source” to mean something close (but
+not identical) to “free software.” We prefer the term “free software”
+because, once you have heard that it refers to freedom rather than
+price, it calls to mind freedom. The word “open” never refers to
+freedom.[(4)](#FOOT4)
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+### Footnotes
+
+### [(1)](#DOCF1)
+
+@raggedright See “Free Software Is Even More Important Now”
+(@pageref{More Important Now}) for more on this issue. @end raggedright
+
+### [(2)](#DOCF2)
+
+@raggedright See “Why Free Software Needs Free Documentation”
+(@pageref{Free Doc}). @end raggedright
+
+### [(3)](#DOCF3)
+
+@raggedright See <http://freedomdefined.org>. @end raggedright
+
+### [(4)](#DOCF4)
+
+@raggedright See “Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software”
+(@pageref{OS Misses Point}). @end raggedright
+
+</div>
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using
+[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\