Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:39, 12 September 2020

{{Distinguish|Freeware}} {{other uses}} {{short description|Software licensed to preserve user freedoms}} {{broader|Free software movement}} ] desktop environment, the ] web browser, the ] text editor, the ] image editor, and the ].]] '''Free software''' (or '''libre software''')<ref>See {{cite web|url=https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html|author=GNU Project |title= What is free software?|publisher=Free Software Foundation|language=en}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{cite web|url=http://www.internethalloffame.org/inductees/richard-stallman|title=Richard Stallman - Internet Hall of Fame|publisher=|accessdate=26 March 2017}}</ref> is ] distributed under terms that allow users to run the software for any purpose as well as to study, change, and distribute it and any adapted versions.<ref> (gnu.org)</ref><ref> (gnu.org)</ref><ref name="def">{{cite web|url = http://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software |title = Free software is software that gives you the user the freedom to share, study and modify it. We call this free software because the user is free. |website = fsf.org}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society-2/|title=GNU Press - Free Software Foundation Online Shop - Buy GNU t-shirts, books, stickers and stuffed gnu toys|publisher= |access-date= 19 March 2015}}</ref><ref name="softwarefreedom" /> Free software is a matter of ], not price: users and ]s are free to do what they want with their copies of a free software (including profiting from them) regardless of how much is paid to obtain the program.<ref name=":1"> (gnu.org)</ref><ref name=":0" /> Computer programs are deemed "free" if they give both programmers and end-users ultimate control over the software and, subsequently, over their devices.<ref name="def" /><ref name="initial-announcement" /> The right to study and modify a computer program entails that ]—the preferred format for making changes—be made available to users of that program. While this is often called "access to source code" or "public availability", the ] recommends against thinking in those terms,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html#Access |title=Words to Avoid (or Use with Care) Because They Are Loaded or Confusing: Access|website=www.gnu.org|language=en|access-date=}}</ref> because it might give the impression that users have an obligation (as opposed to a right) to give non-users a copy of the program. Although the term "free software" had already been used loosely in the past,<ref name="infoworld1983" /> ] is credited with tying it to the sense under discussion and starting the ] in 1983, when he launched the ]: a collaborative effort to create a freedom-respecting ], and to revive the spirit of cooperation once prevalent among ] during the early days of computing.<ref>{{Cite news|url=|title=Richard Stallman and The History of Free Software and Open Source|last=Levi|first=Ran|date=|work=Curious Minds Podcast|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/open-source/gnu.htm|title=GNU|authors=Amit Garg, Ryan Burdett, Ishaan Shastri, Evan Parker|date=|website=cs.stanford.edu|access-date=2017-10-17}}</ref> == Context == ] describes the typical relationship between freeware and ] (FOSS): According to David Rosen from ] in 2010, open source / free software (orange) is most often ] but not always. Freeware (green) seldom expose their source code.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/05/Open-source-software-is-not-always-freeware |title=Open-source software is not always freeware |date=May 16, 2010 |accessdate=2016-01-18 |first=David |last=Rosen |publisher=].com}}</ref>]] Free software thus differs from: * ], such as ], ], ], and ] or ] from ]. Users cannot study, change, and share their ]. * ], which is a category of proprietary software that does not require payment for basic use. For software under the purview of ] to be free, it must carry a ] whereby the author grants users the aforementioned rights. Software that is not covered by copyright law, such as software in the ], is free as long as the source code is in the public domain too, or otherwise available without restrictions. Proprietary software uses restrictive software licences or ] and usually does not provide users with the source code. Users are thus legally or technically prevented from ] the software, and this results on reliance on the publisher to provide updates, help, and support. (See also ] and ]). Users often may not ], modify, or redistribute proprietary software.<ref name="Dixon" /><ref name="Graham" /> Beyond copyright law, contracts and lack of source code, there can exist additional obstacles keeping users from exercising freedom over a piece of software, such as ]s and ] (more specifically, ]).<ref>{{Cite web|url = https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2008/spring/the-last-mile-is-always-the-hardest/|title = The Last Mile is Always the Hardest|date = 17 July 2008|accessdate = 29 December 2014|website = ]|publisher = |last = Sullivan|first = John|authorlink = William John Sullivan|archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20141028230334/http://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2008/spring/the-last-mile-is-always-the-hardest/|archivedate = 28 October 2014}}</ref> Free software can be a for-profit, commercial activity or not. Some free software is developed by volunteer ] while other is developed by corporations; or even by both.<ref name="Popp2">{{cite book | first = Dr. Karl Michael | last = Popp | title = Best Practices for commercial use of open source software | year = 2015 | publisher = Books on Demand | location = Norderstedt, Germany | isbn = 978-3738619096}}</ref><ref name=":1" /> === {{anchor|Naming}}Naming and differences with Open Source === {{main|Alternative terms for free software}} Although both definitions refer to almost equivalent corpora of programs, the Free Software Foundation recommends using the term "free software" rather than "]" (a younger vision coined in 1998), because the goals and messaging are quite dissimilar. "Open source" and its associated campaign mostly focus on the technicalities of the ] and marketing free software to businesses, while taking the ethical issue of user rights very lightly or even antagonistically.<ref name="misses-the-point" /> Stallman has also stated that considering the practical advantages of free software is like considering the practical advantages of not being handcuffed, in that it is not necessary for an individual to consider practical reasons in order to realize that being handcuffed is undesirable in itself.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/practical.html |title=The advantages of free software |authorlink=Richard Stallman |first=Richard |last=Stallman |publisher=] |date=2013-05-14 |accessdate=2013-08-12}}</ref> The FSF also notes that "Open Source" has exactly one specific meaning in common English, namely that "you can look at the source code." It states that while the term "Free Software" can lead to two different interpretations, at least one of them is consistent with the intended meaning unlike the term "Open Source".{{efn|Access to source code is a necessary but insufficient condition, according to both the Free Software and Open Source definitions.}} The loan adjective "]" is often used to avoid the ambiguity of the word "free" in ], and the ambiguity with the older usage of "free software" as public-domain software.<ref name="infoworld1983" /> See ]. =={{anchor|Definition}}Definition and the Four Essential Freedoms of Free Software== {{Main|The Free Software Definition}} {{see also|Debian Free Software Guidelines|Open Source Definition}} ]]] The first formal definition of free software was published by FSF in February 1986.<ref name="bull6" /> That definition, written by Richard Stallman, is still maintained today and states that software is free software if people who receive a copy of the software have the following four freedoms.<ref name="free-sw" /><ref>{{cite web|url=https://fsfe.org/freesoftware/basics/4freedoms.en.html|title=Four Freedoms - FSFE|work=fsfe.org}}</ref> The numbering begins with zero, not only as a spoof on the common usage of ] in programming languages, but also because "Freedom 0" was not initially included in the list, but later added first in the list as it was considered very important. * Freedom 0: The freedom to ''run'' the program for any purpose. * Freedom 1: The freedom to ''study'' how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish. * Freedom 2: The freedom to ''redistribute'' and make copies so you can help your neighbour. * Freedom 3: The freedom to ''improve'' the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits. Freedoms 1 and 3 require ] to be available because studying and modifying software without its source code can range from highly impractical to nearly impossible. Thus, free software means that ] have the freedom to cooperate with whom they choose, and to control the software they use. To summarize this into a remark distinguishing ''libre'' (freedom) software from '']'' (zero price) software, the Free Software Foundation says: "Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of 'free' as in ']', not as in 'free beer{{'"}}.<ref name="free-sw" /> See ]. In the late 1990s, other groups published their own definitions that describe an almost identical set of software. The most notable are ] published in 1997,<ref name="Perens" /> and the ], published in 1998. The ]-based operating systems, such as ], ], and ], do not have their own formal definitions of free software. Users of these systems generally find the same set of software to be acceptable, but sometimes see ] as restrictive. They generally advocate ], which allow others to use the software as they wish, without being legally ''forced'' to provide the source code. Their view is that this permissive approach is more free. The ], ], and ] software licenses are substantially similar in intent and implementation. == Examples == {{Main|List of free and open-source software packages}}There are thousands of free applications and many operating systems available on the Internet. Users can easily download and install those applications via a ] that comes included with most ]. The ] maintains a large database of free-software packages. Some of the best-known examples include the ], the ] and Linux operating systems, the ] and ]; the ] relational database; the ] web server; and the ] mail transport agent. Other influential examples include the ] text editor; the ] raster drawing and image editor; the ] graphical-display system; the ] office suite; and the ] and ] typesetting systems. {{Gallery |title=Free Software |width=200 |height=150 |lines=5 |File: Kscreen-krunner.png|] desktop on ]. |File: Captura de pagina de manual de OpenSSL.png|]'s manual page. |File: BgeCarSc.jpg|Creating a 3D car racing game using the ]. |File: Replicant 4.0 on NexusS.png|] smartphone, an Android-based system that is 100% free software. |File: Libreoffice 5.3 writer MUFFIN interface.png|] is a free multi-platform office suite. }} == History == {{further|History of free and open-source software}} {{see also|Open-source software#History}} ], founder of the ] (2002)]] From the 1950s up until the early 1970s, it was normal for computer users to have the ''software freedoms'' associated with free software, which was typically ].<ref name="infoworld1983">{{cite web|url=https://books.google.com/?id=yy8EAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA31&dq=us%20government%20public%20domain%20software&pg=PA31#v=onepage&q=us%20government%20public%20domain%20software&f=false |work=] |date=1983-06-23|title=Free software - Free software is a junkyard of software spare parts |quote=''"In contrast to commercial software is a large and growing body of free software that exists in the public domain. Public-domain software is written by microcomputer hobbyists (also known as "hackers") many of whom are professional programmers in their work life. Since everybody has access to source code, many routines have not only been used but dramatically improved by other programmers."'' |first=Tom |last=Shea |accessdate=2016-02-10}}</ref> ] was commonly shared by individuals who used computers and by hardware manufacturers who welcomed the fact that people were making software that made their hardware useful. Organizations of users and suppliers, for example, ], were formed to facilitate exchange of software. As software was often written in an interpreted language such as ], the ] was distributed to use these programs. Software was also shared and distributed as printed source code (]) in ]s (like ], ], ], ] etc) and books, like the bestseller '']''.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.swapmeetdave.com/Ahl/DHAbio.htm | title = David H. Ahl biography from Who's Who in America | first = David | last = Ahl | accessdate = 2009-11-23}}</ref> By the early 1970s, the picture changed: software costs were dramatically increasing, a growing software industry was competing with the hardware manufacturer's bundled software products (free in that the cost was included in the hardware cost), leased machines required software support while providing no revenue for software, and some customers able to better meet their own needs did not want the costs of "free" software bundled with hardware product costs. In ''United States vs. ]'', filed January 17, 1969, the government charged that bundled software was ].<ref name="Fisher" /> While some software might always be free, there would henceforth be a growing amount of software produced primarily for sale. In the 1970s and early 1980s, the ] began using technical measures (such as only distributing ] of ]s) to prevent ] from being able to study or adapt the software applications as they saw fit. In 1980, ] law was extended to computer programs. In 1983, ], one of the original authors of the popular ] program and a longtime member of the ] community at the ], announced the ], the purpose of which was to produce a completely non-proprietary ] operating system, saying that he had become frustrated with the shift in climate surrounding the computer world and its users. In his initial declaration of the project and its purpose, he specifically cited as a motivation his opposition to being asked to agree to ]s and restrictive licenses which prohibited the free sharing of potentially profitable in-development software, a prohibition directly contrary to the traditional ]. Software development for the ] began in January 1984, and the ] (FSF) was founded in October 1985. He developed a free software definition and the concept of "]", designed to ensure ''software freedom'' for all. Some non-software industries are beginning to use techniques similar to those used in free software development for their research and development process; scientists, for example, are looking towards more open development processes, and hardware such as microchips are beginning to be developed with specifications released under ] licenses (see the ] project, for instance). ] and the ] have also been largely influenced by the free software movement. ===1980s: Foundation of the GNU project=== In 1983, ], longtime member of the ] community at the ], announced the GNU project, saying that he had become frustrated with the effects of the change in culture of the computer industry and its users.<ref>{{cite book |last = Williams | first = Sam|date = 2002|title = Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman's Crusade for Free Software |url = https://archive.org/details/freeasinfreedomr00will |publisher = O'Reilly Media |isbn = 0-596-00287-4}}</ref> Software development for the GNU operating system began in January 1984, and the ] (FSF) was founded in October 1985. An article outlining the project and its goals was published in March 1985 titled the ]. The manifesto included significant explanation of the GNU philosophy, '']'' and "]" ideas. ===1990s: Release of the Linux kernel=== The ], started by ], was released as freely modifiable source code in 1991. The first licence was a proprietary software licence. However, with version 0.12 in February 1992, he ] the project under the ].<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/Historic/old-versions/RELNOTES-0.12 | title=Release notes for Linux kernel 0.12 | publisher=Kernel.org}}</ref> Much like Unix, Torvalds' kernel attracted the attention of volunteer programmers. ] and ] (both derived from ]) were released as free software when the ] lawsuit was settled out of court in 1993. ] ] from NetBSD in 1995. Also in 1995, The ], commonly referred to as Apache, was released under the ]. == Licensing == {{Main|Free-software license}} {{Further|Open-source license}} {{See also|Free and open-source software#Licensing}} ], a novel use of copyright law to ensure that works remain unrestricted, originates in the world of free software.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Carver|first=Brian W.|date=2005-04-05|title=Share and Share Alike: Understanding and Enforcing Open Source and Free Software Licenses|journal=Berkeley Technology Law Journal|location=|volume=20|pages=39|ssrn=1586574}}</ref>]] All free-software licenses must grant users all the freedoms discussed above. However, unless the applications' licenses are compatible, combining programs by mixing source code or directly linking binaries is problematic, because of ]. Programs indirectly connected together may avoid this problem. The majority of free software falls under a small set of licenses. The most popular of these licenses are:<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.blackducksoftware.com/resources/data/top-20-licenses |quote=1. MIT license 24%, 2. GNU General Public License (GPL) 2.0 23%, 3. Apache License 16%, 4. GNU General Public License (GPL) 3.0 9%, 5. BSD License 2.0 (3-clause, New or Revised) License 6%, 6. GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) 2.1 5%, 7. Artistic License (Perl) 4%, 8. GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) 3.0 2%, 9. Microsoft Public License 2%, 10. Eclipse Public License (EPL) 2% |title=Top 20 licenses |publisher=Black Duck Software |accessdate=19 November 2015 |date=19 November 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160719043600/http://www.blackducksoftware.com/resources/data/top-20-licenses |archive-date=19 July 2016 |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://github.com/blog/1964-license-usage-on-github-com |quote="1 MIT 44.69%, 2 Other 15.68%, 3 GPLv2 12.96%, 4 Apache 11.19%, 5 GPLv3 8.88%, 6 BSD 3-clause 4.53%, 7 Unlicense 1.87%, 8 BSD 2-clause 1.70%, 9 LGPLv3 1.30%, 10 AGPLv3 1.05% |title=Open source license usage on GitHub.com |date=2015-03-09 |first=Ben |last=Balter |accessdate=2015-11-21 |publisher=]}}</ref> * The ] * The ] (GPLv2) * The ] * The ] (GPLv3) * The ] * The ] (LGPL) * The ] (MPL) * The ] The Free Software Foundation and the Open Source Initiative both publish lists of licenses that they find to comply with their own definitions of free software and open-source software respectively: * ] * ] The FSF list is not prescriptive: free-software licenses can exist that the FSF has not heard about, or considered important enough to write about. So it's possible for a license to be free and not in the FSF list. The OSI list only lists licenses that have been submitted, considered and approved. All open-source licenses must meet the ] in order to be officially recognized as open source software. Free software, on the other hand, is a more informal classification that does not rely on official recognition. Nevertheless, software licensed under licenses that do not meet the Free Software Definition cannot rightly be considered free software. Apart from these two organizations, the ] project is seen by some to provide useful advice on whether particular licenses comply with their ]. Debian doesn't publish a list of ''approved'' licenses, so its judgments have to be tracked by checking what software they have allowed into their software archives. That is summarized at the Debian web site.<ref name="Debian" /> It is rare that a license announced as being in-compliance with the FSF guidelines does not also meet the ], although the reverse is not necessarily true (for example, the ] is an OSI-approved license, but non-free according to FSF). There are different categories of free software. * ] software: the copyright has expired, the work was not copyrighted (released without ] before 1988), or the author has released the software onto the public domain with a ] statement (in countries where this is possible). Since public-domain software lacks copyright protection, it may be freely incorporated into any work, whether proprietary or free. The FSF recommends the ] public domain dedication for this purpose.<ref>{{cite web|title=Various Licenses and Comments about Them|url=https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CC0|work=gnu.org|accessdate=20 March 2014}}</ref> * ], also called BSD-style because they are applied to much of the software distributed with the ] operating systems: many of these licenses are also known as ] as they have no restrictions on distribution.<ref name="copyfree" /> The author retains copyright solely to disclaim warranty and require proper attribution of modified works, and permits redistribution and '''any''' modification, even closed-source ones. In this sense, a permissive license provides an incentive to create non-free software, by reducing the cost of developing restricted software. Since this is incompatible with the spirit of software freedom, many people consider permissive licenses to be less free than copyleft licenses. * ] licenses, with the ] being the most prominent: the author retains copyright and permits redistribution under the restriction that all such redistribution is licensed under the same license. Additions and modifications by others must also be licensed under the same "copyleft" license whenever they are distributed with part of the original licensed product. This is also known as a ], '']'', or ''reciprocal'' license. Due to the restriction on distribution not everyone considers this type of license to be free.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.charvolant.org/doug/gpl/html/gpl.html|title=Why Not Use the GPL? Thoughts on Free and Open-Source Software|last=Palmer|first=Doug|date=2003-02-15|website=www.charvolant.org|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200124140248/https://www.charvolant.org/doug/gpl/html/gpl.html|archive-date=2020-01-24|access-date=2020-01-24}}</ref> == Security and reliability == ] only affect ],<ref>{{cite book |authors=Mookhey, K.K.; Burghate, Nilesh |title=Linux: Security, Audit and Control Features |publisher=ISACA|year=2005|isbn=9781893209787|page=128 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-kD0sxQ0EkIC&pg=PA128}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|author=Toxen, Bob|title=Real World Linux Security: Intrusion Prevention, Detection, and Recovery|publisher=Prentice Hall Professional |year=2003 |isbn=9780130464569 |page=365 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_-1jwRwNaEoC&pg=PA365}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |author=Noyes, Katherine |title=Why Linux Is More Secure Than Windows |work=PCWorld |date=Aug 3, 2010 |url=https://www.pcworld.com/article/202452/why_linux_is_more_secure_than_windows.html |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130901151841/http://www.pcworld.com/article/202452/why_linux_is_more_secure_than_windows.html |archivedate=2013-09-01}}</ref> ] such as ] (shown here) is still provided for Linux and other Unix-based systems, so that users can detect ] that might infect Windows hosts.]] There is debate over the ] of free software in comparison to proprietary software, with a major issue being ]. A popular quantitative test in computer security is to use relative counting of known unpatched security flaws. Generally, users of this method advise avoiding products that lack fixes for known security flaws, at least until a fix is available. Free software advocates strongly believe that this methodology is biased by counting more vulnerabilities for the free software systems, since their source code is accessible and their community is more forthcoming about what problems exist,<ref name="cnet" /> (This is called "Security Through Disclosure"<ref name="albion" />) and proprietary software systems can have undisclosed societal drawbacks, such as disenfranchising less fortunate would-be users of free programs. As users can analyse and trace the source code, many more people with no commercial constraints can inspect the code and find bugs and loopholes than a corporation would find practicable. According to Richard Stallman, user access to the source code makes deploying free software with undesirable hidden ] functionality far more difficult than for proprietary software.<ref name="rms-fs-2006-03-09" /> Some quantitative studies have been done on the subject.<ref name="Wheeler" /><ref name="Delio" /><ref name="fuzz-revisited" /><ref name="fuzz-macos" /> ===Binary blobs and other proprietary software=== In 2006, ] started the first campaign against the use of ]s in ]. Blobs are usually freely distributable ]s for hardware from vendors that do not reveal driver source code to users or developers. This restricts the users' freedom effectively to modify the software and distribute modified versions. Also, since the blobs are undocumented and may have ], they pose a security risk to any ] whose kernel includes them. The proclaimed aim of the campaign against blobs is to collect hardware documentation that allows developers to write free software drivers for that hardware, ultimately enabling all free operating systems to become or remain blob-free. The issue of binary blobs in the ] and other device drivers motivated some developers in Ireland to launch ], a Linux based distribution with all the binary blobs removed. The project received support from the ] and stimulated the creation, headed by the ], of the ] kernel.<ref name="FreeGNULinuxDistributions" /> As of October 2012, ] is the most popular FSF endorsed Linux distribution ranked by Distrowatch (over 12 months).<ref name="DW02" /> While ] is not endorsed by the FSF and does not use Linux-libre, it is also a popular distribution available without kernel blobs by default since 2011.<ref name="FreeGNULinuxDistributions" /> == Business model == {{see also|Business models for open-source software}} ] under any free-software licence is permissible, as is commercial use. This is true for licenses with or without ].<ref name="Popp2" /><ref name="linfo" /><ref name="bsdl-gpl" /> Since free software may be freely redistributed, it is generally available at little or no fee. Free software business models are usually based on adding value such as customization, accompanying hardware, support, training, integration, or certification.<ref name="Popp2" /> Exceptions exist however, where the user is charged to obtain a copy of the free application itself.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2016-02/msg00227.html |title= Is there any software that is libre but not gratis}}</ref> Fees are usually charged for distribution on compact discs and bootable USB drives, or for services of installing or maintaining the operation of free software. Development of large, commercially used free software is often funded by a combination of user donations, ], corporate contributions, and tax money. The ] project at the United States ] is an example of a federally funded free-software project. Proprietary software, on the other hand, tends to use a different business model, where a customer of the proprietary application pays a fee for a license to legally access and use it. This license may grant the customer the ability to configure some or no parts of the software themselves. Often some level of support is included in the purchase of proprietary software, but additional support services (especially for enterprise applications) are usually available for an additional fee. Some proprietary software vendors will also customize software for a fee.<ref name="Dornan" /> The Free Software Foundation encourages selling free software. As the Foundation has written, "distributing free software is an opportunity to raise funds for development. Don't waste it!".<ref name=":1" /> For example, the FSF's own recommended license (the ]) states that " may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee."<ref name="GPLsection4" /> Microsoft CEO ] stated in 2001 that "open source is not available to commercial companies. The way the license is written, if you use any open-source software, you have to make the rest of your software open source."<ref name="suntimes" /> This misunderstanding is based on a requirement of ] licenses (like the GPL) that if one distributes modified versions of software, they must release the source and use the same license. This requirement does not extend to other software from the same developer.{{citation needed|date=April 2019}} The claim of incompatibility between commercial companies and free software is also a misunderstanding. There are several large companies, e.g. ] and ], which do substantial commercial business in the development of free software.{{citation needed|date=April 2019}} == {{anchor|Adoption}} Economic aspects and adoption == {{main|Free and open-source software#Adoption}} {{See also|Linux adoption|Open-source software#Adoption}} Free software played a significant part in the development of the Internet, the World Wide Web and the infrastructure of ].<ref name="Web Server Survey" /><ref name="Apache Strategy" /> Free software allows users to cooperate in enhancing and refining the programs they use; free software is a ] rather than a ]. Companies that contribute to free software increase commercial ].<ref>{{cite journal |first1=Teresa |last1=Waring |first2=Philip |last2=Maddocks |title=Open Source Software implementation in the UK public sector: Evidence from the field and implications for the future |url=http://doai.io/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2005.06.00 |journal=International Journal of Information Management |date=1 October 2005 |pages=411–428 |volume=25 |issue=5 |doi=10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2005.06.002 |quote=In addition OSS’s development process is creating innovative products that are reliable, secure, practical and have high usability and performance ratings. Users are now not only benefiting from the OSS revolution but also from the improved proprietary software development that is being forced upon suppliers in order to maintain competitive advantage.}}</ref> {{quote box |width=25% |align=left |quote="We migrated key functions from Windows to Linux because we needed an operating system that was stable and reliable – one that would give us in-house control. So if we needed to patch, adjust, or adapt, we could." |source=Official statement of the ], which manages the computer systems for the ] (ISS), regarding their May 2013 decision to migrate ISS computer systems from Windows to Linux<ref>{{cite news |author=Gunter, Joel |title=International Space Station to boldly go with Linux over Windows |work=The Telegraph |date=May 10, 2013 |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10049444/International-Space-Station-to-boldly-go-with-Linux-over-Windows.html}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Bridgewater |first=Adrian |title=International Space Station adopts Debian Linux, drops Windows & Red Hat into airlock |journal=] |date=May 13, 2013 |url=http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/open-source-insider/2013/05/international-space-station-adopts-debian-linux-drop-windows-red-hat-into-airlock.html}}</ref>}} The economic viability of free software has been recognized by large corporations such as ], ], and ].<ref name="ibm" /><ref name="Hamid" /><ref name="l-erick" /><ref name="gpl-java" /><ref name="MERIT-floss" /> Many companies whose core business is not in the IT sector choose free software for their Internet information and sales sites, due to the lower initial capital investment and ability to freely customize the application packages. Most companies in the software business include free software in their commercial products if the licenses allow that.<ref name="Popp2" /> Free software is generally available at no cost and can result in permanently lower ] compared to ].<ref name="eprints" /> With free software, businesses can fit software to their specific needs by changing the software themselves or by hiring programmers to modify it for them. Free software often has no warranty, and more importantly, generally does not assign legal liability to anyone. However, warranties are permitted between any two parties upon the condition of the software and its usage. Such an agreement is made separately from the free software license. A report by ] estimates that adoption of free software has caused a drop in revenue to the ] industry by about $60 billion per year.<ref name="standishgroup" />. ] argued that the term ''free software'' is too ambiguous and intimidating for the business community. Raymond promoted the term '']'' as a friendlier alternative for the business and corporate world.<ref name="esr" /> == See also == {{Portal|Free and open-source software}} {{div col |small=yes|colwidth=20em}} * ] * ] * ] * ] * ] * ] * ] * ] * ] * ] * ] * ] * ] * ] * ] {{div col end}} == Notes == {{notelist}} == References == {{reflist|1=30em|refs= <ref name="softwarefreedom">{{cite web | url = http://www.softwarefreedom.org | title = Software Freedom Law Center}}</ref> <ref name="Dixon">{{cite book | last1 = Dixon | first1 = Rod | title = Open Source Software Law | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=9b_vVPf53xcC&pg=PA4&dq=%22free+software%22+freeware#PPA4,M1 | accessdate = 2009-03-16 | year = 2004 | publisher = Artech House | isbn = 978-1-58053-719-3 | page = 4}}</ref> <ref name="Graham">{{cite book | last1 = Graham | first1 = Lawrence D. | title = Legal battles that shaped the computer industry | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=c6IS3RnN6qAC&pg=PA175&dq=%22Legal+battles+that+shaped+the+computer+industry%22+%22from+the+beginning+of+the+computer+age%22 | accessdate = 2009-03-16 | year = 1999 | publisher = Greenwood Publishing Group | isbn = 978-1-56720-178-9 | page = 175}}</ref> <ref name="initial-announcement">{{cite web | url = https://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.html | website= GNU Project|title = Initial Announcement|publisher = Free Software Foundation|first = Richard|last = Stallman|date= 27 September 1983}}</ref> <ref name="Fisher">{{cite book | last = Fisher | first = Franklin M. |author2= McKie, James W.|author3=Mancke, Richard B. | title = IBM and the U.S. Data Processing Industry: An Economic History | publisher = Praeger | year = 1983 | isbn = 0-03-063059-2}}</ref> <ref name="misses-the-point">{{cite web | url = https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html | title = Why "Open Source" misses the point of Free Software|first = Richard|last = Stallman|website = GNU Project|publisher = Free Software Foundation}}</ref> <ref name="bull6">{{cite news| url = https://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull1.txt | title = What is the Free Software Foundation? |work =GNU's Bulletin|volume= 1 |number= 1| page= 8|first = Richard|last = Stallman}}</ref> <ref name="free-sw">{{cite web | last = Free Software Foundation | title = What is free software? | url = https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html | accessdate = 14 December 2011}}</ref> <ref name="Perens">{{cite web | first = Bruce | last = Perens | url = http://fsfe.org/freesoftware/transcripts/rms-fs-2006-03-09.en.html | title = Debian's "Social Contract" with the Free Software Community | work = debian-announce mailing list}}</ref> <ref name="Debian">{{cite web | url = http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ | title = Debian -- License information | accessdate = 2008-01-08}}</ref> <ref name="copyfree">{{cite web|url=http://copyfree.org/|title=CI: Main|publisher=|accessdate=19 March 2015}}</ref> <ref name="cnet">{{cite web | url = http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6047727-7.html | title = Firefox more secure than MSIE after all | publisher = News.com}}</ref> <ref name="albion">{{cite web|url=http://www.albion.com/security/intro-7.html|title=The Benefits of Open Source|publisher=|accessdate=19 March 2015}}</ref> <ref name="rms-fs-2006-03-09">{{cite web | url = http://fsfe.org/freesoftware/transcripts/rms-fs-2006-03-09.en.html | title = Transcript where Stallman explains about spyware}}</ref> <ref name="Wheeler">David A. Wheeler: 2007</ref> <ref name="Delio">Michelle Delio: Wired.com 2004</ref> <ref name="fuzz-revisited">{{cite journal|title=Fuzz Revisited: A Re-examination of the Reliability of UNIX Utilities and Services|date=October 1995|url=http://ftp.cs.wisc.edu/pub/paradyn/technical_papers/fuzz-revisited.pdf|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20100621162832/http://ftp.cs.wisc.edu/pub/paradyn/technical_papers/fuzz-revisited.pdf|archivedate=21 June 2010|accessdate=1 May 2013|author1=Barton P. Miller |author2=David Koski |author3=Cjin Pheow Lee |author4=Vivekananda Maganty |author5=Ravi Murthy |author6=Ajitkumar Natarajan |author7=Jeff Steidl |publisher=University of Wisconsin: Computer Sciences Department|location=Madison, WI 53706-1685 USA|quote=''...The reliability of the basic utilities from GNU and Linux were noticeably better than those of the commercial systems'' }}</ref> <ref name="fuzz-macos">{{cite journal|title=An Empirical Study of the Robustness of MacOS Applications Using Random Testing|date=20 July 2006|pages=1, 2|url=http://ftp.cs.wisc.edu/pub/paradyn/technical_papers/Fuzz-MacOS.pdf|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20100621163055/http://ftp.cs.wisc.edu/pub/paradyn/technical_papers/Fuzz-MacOS.pdf|archivedate=21 June 2010|accessdate=1 May 2013|author1=Barton P. Miller |author2=Gregory Cooksey |author3=Fredrick Moore |publisher=University of Wisconsin: Computer Sciences Department|location=Madison, WI 53706-1685 USA|quote=We are back again, this time testing... Apple’s Mac OS X. While the results were reasonable, we were disappointed to find that the reliability was no better than that of the Linux/GNU tools tested in 1995. We were less sure what to expect when testing the GUI- based applications; the results turned out worse than we expected.}}</ref> <ref name="FreeGNULinuxDistributions">{{cite web|url=https://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDistributions|title=Links to Other Free Software Sites - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation|publisher=|accessdate=19 March 2015}}</ref> <ref name="DW02">{{cite web|url=http://distrowatch.com/stats.php?section=popularity |title=DistroWatch Page Hit Ranking |accessdate=30 October 2012 |publisher=] |date=30 October 2012 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20111007074633/http://distrowatch.com/stats.php?section=popularity |archivedate=7 October 2011}}</ref> <ref name="linfo">{{cite web|url=http://www.linfo.org/bsdlicense.html|title=BSD license definition|publisher=|accessdate=19 March 2015}}</ref> <ref name="bsdl-gpl">{{cite web|url=http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/bsdl-gpl/article.html|title=Why you should use a BSD style license for your Open Source Project|publisher=|accessdate=19 March 2015}}</ref> <ref name="GPLsection4"> gnu.org</ref> <ref name="suntimes">{{cite web|url=http://suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-fin-micro01.html |title=Ballmer calling open source a 'cancer', saying it's "not available to commercial companies" |accessdate=2001-06-15 |url-status=bot: unknown |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20010615205548/http://suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-fin-micro01.html |archivedate=2001-06-15}} Chicago Sun-Times, 2001</ref> <ref name="Web Server Survey">{{cite web | url = http://news.netcraft.com/archives/category/web-server-survey/ | title = Web Server Usage Survey | author = Netcraft}}</ref> <ref name="Apache Strategy">{{cite web|url=http://www.unc.edu/~mohrmana/apache.pdf |title=Apache Strategy in the New Economy |author=The Apache Software Foundation |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080216004731/http://www.unc.edu/~mohrmana/apache.pdf |archivedate=2008-02-16}}</ref> <ref name="ibm">{{cite web | url = http://www.ibm.com/news/1999/03/02.phtml | title = IBM launches biggest Linux lineup ever | date = 1999-03-02 | publisher = IBM | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/19991110114228/http://www.ibm.com/news/1999/03/02.phtml | archivedate = 1999-11-10}}</ref> <ref name="Hamid">{{cite web | title = IBM invests in Brazil Linux Tech Center | url = https://lwn.net/Articles/185602/ | date = 2006-05-24 | publisher = ] | first = Farrah | last = Hamid}}</ref> <ref name="l-erick">{{cite web | url = http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-erick.html | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20091218093727/http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-erick.html | archivedate = 2009-12-18 | title = Interview: The Eclipse code donation | date = 2001-11-01 | publisher = IBM}}</ref> <ref name="gpl-java">{{cite web | url = http://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-welcomes-gpl-java.html | title = Sun begins releasing Java under the GPL | accessdate = 2007-09-23 | date = November 15, 2006 | publisher = ]}}</ref> <ref name="MERIT-floss">{{cite web | title = Study on the: Economic impact of open source software on innovation and the competitiveness of the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) sector in the EU | url = http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/ict/files/2006-11-20-flossimpact_en.pdf | accessdate = 2007-01-25 | author = Rishab Aiyer Ghosh | date = November 20, 2006 | publisher = ] | page = 51}}</ref> <ref name="Dornan">{{cite web | author = Andy Dornan | title = The Five Open Source Business Models | url = http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/01/the_five_open_s.html | url-status = dead | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20091010195844/http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/01/the_five_open_s.html | archivedate = October 10, 2009}}</ref> <ref name="eprints">{{cite web|url=http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/39826/|title=Total cost of ownership of open source software: a report for the UK Cabinet Office supported by OpenForum Europe|publisher=|accessdate=19 March 2015}}</ref> <ref name="standishgroup">{{cite web|url=http://standishgroup.com/newsroom/open_source.php |title=Open Source |work=Standish Newsroom |publisher=Standishgroup.com |date=2008-04-16 |accessdate=2010-08-22 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120118001419/http://standishgroup.com/newsroom/open_source.php |archivedate=2012-01-18}}</ref> <ref name="esr">{{cite web | title = Eric S. Raymond's initial call to start using the term open source software, instead of free software | url = http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html | author = Eric S. Raymond}}</ref> }} == Further reading == * * * {{ cite book | last = Stallman | first = Richard M. | title = Free Software Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman, 2nd Edition | publisher = GNU Press | orig-year = 2002 | year = 2010 | url = http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society-2/ | isbn = 978-0-9831592-0-9 }} == External links == {{Wikiquote}} {{Commons category}} {{Wikinews category|FLOSS}} {{FLOSS |state=expanded}} {{Software distribution}} {{Independent production}} ] ] ]