Определение на свободен софтуер

We maintain this free software definition to show clearly what must be true about a particular software program for it to be considered free software. From time to time we revise this definition to clarify it. If you would like to review the changes we've made, please see the History section below for more information.

„Свободният софтуер“ е израз на свободата, а не на цената. За да разберете концепцията, мислете си за „свобода на словото“, а не „безплатен обяд“1.

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it means that the program's users have the four essential freedoms:

A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be 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.

Също така, вие трябва да разполагате със свободата да правите промени и да ги ползвате самостоятелно в работата си или ако просто си играете, без дори да споменавате за тяхното съществуване. Ако публикувате промените си, от вас не трябва да се изисква да уведомявате някого за това по какъвто и да е начин.

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 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 improved 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.

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 (through blacklisting) as “secure boot” — freedom 1 becomes a theoretical fiction rather than a practical freedom. This is not sufficient. In other words, 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 use 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 change its terms, without your doing anything wrong to give cause, the software is not free.

Все пак, някои правила за начина на разпространение на свободния софтуер са приемливи, когато не противоречат на основните свободи. Например „copyleft“ (да го кажем по прост начин) е правилото, че когато разпространявате програмата, не можете да добавяте ограничения, за да откажете на другите хора основните свободи. Това правило не противоречи на основните свободи — то ги защитава.

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 modifications are limited, in substance, to changes that someone else considers an improvement, that is not freedom.

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. 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. (Note that such a rule still leaves you the choice of whether to publish 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. It is also acceptable for the license to require that you identify your modifications as yours, or that, if you have distributed a modified version and a previous developer asks for a copy of it, you must send one.

In the GNU project, we use copyleft to protect these freedoms legally for everyone. But non-copylefted free software also exists. We believe there are important reasons why it is better to use copyleft, but if your program is non-copylefted free software, it is still basically ethical.

Прегледайте статията „Видове свободен софтуер“ за описанието как категориите „свободен софтуер“, „софтуер със защита copyleft“ и другите видове се съотнасят един с друг.

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 export regulations as a condition of any of the essential freedoms.

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 Confusing Words and Phrases that are Worth Avoiding for a discussion of these terms. We also have a list of proper translations of free software into various languages.

Най-накрая, забележете, че критериите, които са изброени в тази дефиниция за понятието „свободен софтуер“, изискват внимателно размишление при интерпретирането им. За да решим дали един конкретен софтуерен лиценз покрива критериите да е лиценз на свободен софтуер, ние го преценяваме на базата на горните критерии, за да отсъдим дали съответства на тях по дух и по буква. Ако лицензът съдържа прекомерни ограничения, ние го отхвърляме, дори и ако не сме предусетили проблема в горните критерии. Понякога изискване, което е вписано в лиценз, повдига проблем, който изисква задълбочено размишление, включително и обсъждане с адвокат, преди да решим дали то е приемливо. Когато стигнем до решението на новия проблем, ние често обновяваме горните критерии, за да бъде по-ясно защо определени лицензи се определят или не като свободни.

Ако се интересувате дали определен, конкретен лиценз се явява лиценз за свободен софтуер, погледнете списъка ни на лицензи. Ако лицензът, който ви интересува, не е изброен там, можете да ни питате за него чрез е-поща на адрес <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.

Отвъд софтуера

Ръководствата за софтуер трябва да са свободни поради същите причини, поради които и софтуерът трябва да е свободен, и понеже ръководствата в известна степен са част от софтуера.

Същите аргументи имат смисъл и за други видове произведения от практическо естество — с други думи, произведения, които включват в себе си полезни знания, като образователни и справочни материали. Уикипедия е най-известният пример.

Всеки вид прозиведение може да бъде свободно, и определението за свободен софтуер може да бъде разширено до определение за свободни произведения на културата, приложимо за всякакъв вид творби.

Отворен код?

Една друга група започна да използва термина „отворен код“, за да обозначи нещо близко (но не идентично) със „свободния софтуер“. Ние предпочитаме понятието „свободен софтуер“, защото веднъж като чуете, че се отнася за свободата, а не за цената, то извиква в съзнанието — „свобода“. Думата „отворен“ просто не прави това.

History

From time to time we revise this Free Software Definition to clarify it. Here we provide a list of those modifications, along with links to illustrate exactly what changed, so that others can review them if they like.

There are gaps in the version numbers because there are many other changes that do not affect the substance of the definition at all. Instead, they fix links, add translations, and so on. If you would like to review the complete list of changes, you can do so on our cvsweb interface.

Бележки на преводача:
  1. Английската дума „free“ е многозначна. На български тя може да се предава като свободен, но и като безплатен. В рамките на проекта GNU тя винаги се използва в значението си свободен. Контрастирането на свободата на словото с безплатния обяд е възможно най-близкото до българския език предаване на мотото «„free“ as in „free speech“, not as in „free beer“». На български това двусмислие не съществува.
  2. Независимо, че последната свобода е с номер 3, общият им брой е 4. Номерирането отразява както историята на постепенното им оформяне и еволюция (първо свободи 1 и 2, след това 3 и накрая 0), така е и препратка към начина на броене в някои езици за програмиране и математиката.

връщане в началото

Проверете други кампании на Фондацията за свободен софтуер

Други преводи на тази страница