Cutting Free

I think it’s worth being quite specific about what is meant by "Free Software".

The "Free", in this term, refers to freedom ("Free as in Freedom"). That is, when translated to French, it is "libre" (liberty), not "gratis" (price). In fact, it has been proposed that the term "libre software" be used to avoid the confusion. This hasn’t been adopted en masse, but is used by some. I capitalise the initials of "Free Software" to emphasise it as a proper noun with a definition and set it apart from software that is only available gratis.

Four Freedoms

The best source of a definition is the originators of the term - Richard Stallman, and the "Free Software Foundation".

Their definition can be found at the FSF web site (worth reading), and is often called "The Four Freedoms":

• The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

• The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (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 improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

[EDIT] Took out the ramble about Firefox and IceWeasel, and wrote the following.

The essence of this is that you must be able to see the source code. And you must be able to change it in whatever way you wish, and let others reap the benefits of your improvements or crash because of your bugs. There should be no restrictions on your freedom to do these things, other than to ensure you cannot prevent others from having these freedoms.

These freedoms are embodied in the GNU General Public License (GPL), which is quite thorough about protecting these freedoms for those using derived works.

I believe the GPL says that a work derived from the original must be clearly marked as such, and not misrepresented as being the original. This should help companies who want to preserve their reputation, without restricting people based on trademarks.

The GPL does not say that you cannot charge for distributing an application, whether it be yours or anyone else’s. Many companies have been successful in distributing Linux CDs for a fee. Nor does it say that fee should be nominal. However, anyone who pays a fee to receive the programmes may distribute them for free, or for a fee of their choosing.

In order to protect your freedom to access the source code, the GPL does stipulate that source code must be available at no cost. This does, of course mean that you can download the code for free, and compile it yourself.

This leads to a more service-based industry. Many companies make a good sum, by providing technical support, or further development of Free Software. In fact, have made their success in providing these services for proprietary software. Rather than limiting the industry, it shifts the focus, and even levels the playing-field.

–

I hope this has been a reasonably clear explanation. If anyone would like clarification on any issue, or has any corrections, please leave a comment.

Links:

• Free Software Foundation
• The Four Freedoms
• Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG)
• stallman.org