free-sw.html version 1.31

date: 2004-12-12 18:23:56 +0000;  author: rms;  state: Exp;  lines: +6 -5;
Say it's ok to require you identify yourself on your modifications.
Minor clarifications.


Index: free-sw.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/free-sw.html,v
retrieving revision 1.30
retrieving revision 1.31
diff -U 2 -r1.30 -r1.31
--
++ free-sw.html	17 Nov	12 Dec 2004 00:47:22 18:23:56 -0000	1.30	1.31
@@ -94,5 +94,5 @@
the central freedoms; rather it protects them.</p>
<p>
Thus, you
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
@@ -105,5 +105,5 @@
<p>
Rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable, if they
don't effectively substantively block your freedom to release modified versions.
Rules that ``if you make the program available in this way, you must
make it available in that way also'' can be acceptable too, on the
@@ -111,5 +111,6 @@
whether to publish the program or not.)  It is also acceptable for the
license to require that, if you have distributed a modified version
and a previous developer asks for a copy of it, you must send one.</p> one,
or that you identify yourself on your modifications.</p>
<p>
In the GNU project, we use <a href="/copyleft/copyleft.html">``copyleft''</a>
@@ -196,5 +197,5 @@
term "free software" because, once you have heard it refers to freedom
rather than price, <a href="free-software-for-freedom.html">it calls
to mind freedom</a>.</p> freedom</a>.  The word "open" never does that.</p>

<hr />
@@ -292,5 +293,5 @@
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
$Date: 2026/01/28 17:24:09 $ $Author: ineiev $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>