Free Software

Free software, as defined by the Free Software Foundation, is software which can be used, copied, studied, modified and redistributed without restriction. Freedom from such restrictions is central to the concept of "free software", such that the opposite of free software is proprietary software, and not software which is sold for profit, such as commercial software. Free software may sometimes be known as libre software, FLOSS, or open source software. The usual way for software to be distributed as free software is for the software to be accompanied by a free software license, and the source code of the software to be made available.

To help distinguish libre (freedom) software from gratis (zero price) software, Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Movement, developed the following explanation: "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'". More specifically, free software means that computer users have the freedom to cooperate, and to control the software they use.

Most free software is distributed gratis online, or off-line for the marginal cost of distribution, but this is not required, and people may sell copies for any price. The capitalized term "Open Source" is attached to a definition originally created in 1998 from Debian's rewrite of the GNU definition of "Free Software". As a result, nearly all Open Source programs are Free Software, but there are some exceptions.

Although the open source and free software movements share almost identical license criteria and development practices, according to Stallman the respective philosophical values of the two movements are fundamentally different. Stallman endorses the terms Free/Libre/Open-Source Software ("FLOSS") and Free and Open Source Software ("F/OSS") to refer to "open source" and "free software" respectively, without necessarily choosing between or dividing the two camps, but he asks people to consider supporting the "free software" camp.

"Freeware" is software made available free of charge, but is generally proprietary, as users do not have the freedom to use, copy, study, modify or redistribute. Source code for freeware may or may not be published, and permission to distribute modified versions may or may not be granted, so freeware is gratis, and not libre software.

According to Stallman and the FSF, "free" software licenses grant:

• the freedom to run the program for any purpose (called "freedom 0")

• the freedom to study and modify the program ("freedom 1")

• the freedom to copy the program 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")

Freedoms 1 and 3 require source code access, because studying and modifying software without source code is extremely difficult and highly inefficient compared to modifying annotated source code.

The Free Software Foundation web site provides a list of many free software licenses. The list is necessarily incomplete, because a license need not be known to the FSF in order to provide these freedoms.

"Proprietary software" is distributed under more restrictive software licenses. Copyright law and/or contract law restrict modification, duplication and redistribution by users; software released under a free software license rescinds most of these reserved rights.

The FSF free software definition disregards price. CDs containing free software such as GNU/Linux distributions are commonly for sale. However, since the CD buyer still has the free software freedoms, it is free software. Free beer software (freeware) which includes restrictions that confict with the FSF definition are considered proprietary. For example, source code may be unavailable, redistributors may be prohibited charging fees, etc.

Some people use "libre" to avoid the ambiguity of the word "free". However, these terms are mostly used within the free software movement and are slowly spreading.

Open Source

The Open Source Definition is used by the Open Source Initiative to determine whether or not a software license can be considered open source. The definition was based on the Debian Free Software Guidelines, written and adapted primarily by Bruce Perens.

Under the Open Source Definition, licenses must meet ten conditions in order to be considered open source licenses (Note: this version contains unauthorized additions. There is a link to the original unmodified text above. It was taken under fair use).

1. Free Redistribution: the software can be freely given away or sold.

2. Source Code: the source code must either be included or freely obtainable.

3. Derived Works: redistribution of modifications must be allowed.

4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code: licenses may require that modifications are redistributed only as patches.

5. Derived Works: redistribution of modifications must be allowed.

6. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups: no-one can be locked out.

7. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor: commercial users cannot be excluded.

8. Distribution of License: The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.

9. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product: the program cannot be licensed only as part of a larger distribution.

10. License Must Not Restrict Other Software: the license cannot insist that any other software it is distributed with must also be open source

11. License Must Be Technology-Neutral: no click-wrap licenses or other medium-specific ways of accepting the license must be required.

Related to the Open Source Definition is the Free Software definition by the Free Software Foundation, which attempts to capture what is required for a program license to qualify as being free-libre software. In practice, licenses which meet the open source definition almost always also meet the Free software definition. All licenses reported to meet the free software definition as of 2006 also meet the open source definition.

Libre software

Libre software is a term for free software. The adjective libre is a word from the Spanish and French languages which means "has freedom".

The European Commission coined this term in 2000. Like other alternative terms for free software, the main motivation was to avoid the confusing ambiguity of the English adjective free.

While the English adjective free can mean either "no price" or "unfettered", libre only means the latter: "unfettered", or "possessing freedom". The adjective libre compliments the word gratis, from Spanish, or gratuit from French. Those two terms are used to describe commodities that are "free of charge".

The acronym FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) is expanded by some to represent the word "libre": FLOSS (Free/Libre/Open-Source Software).

However, the term libre software is not completely unambiguous. In Tagalog, the adjective libre is ambiguous in the same way that free is in English. In the Philippines, therefore, malayang software is the preferred term for free software.

FOSS and FLOSS

Free and Open Source Software, also F/OSS or FOSS, is software which is liberally licensed to grant the right of users to study, change, and improve its design through the availability of its source code. F/OSS is generally synonymous with free software and open source software, and describes the same licenses, culture, and development models.

Some examples of FOSS software include: the Linux kernel, GNOME Desktop, and FreeBSD.

The most well known and popular F/OSS licenses include: GNU General Public License (GPL), GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL), BSD license, Apache License, MIT License and Mozilla Public License.

There are a number of endorsed F/OSS definitions, and related lists of licenses. The above licenses are approved by all definitions.

F/OSS definitions and guidelines:

• Open Source Definition, from the Open Source Initiative

• Free software definition, from the Free Software Foundation

• Debian Free Software Guidelines

Lists of licenses:

• OSI approved licenses

• The Free Software Foundation's list of free and unfree licenses

The phrase Free/Libre/Open-Source Software, or FLOSS, (see also the similarly derived FOSS) is an inclusive term designed to be neutral when referring to both free software and open source software.

Often both free software and open software can refer to the same program or source code, but each term represents a differing emphasis on the importance of freedom (free software) or technical progress (open source software).

The term FLOSS is often used to bridge the ideological divide between the free software and open source software movements. The term FLOSS is useful for those who, for a variety of reasons, do not want to align themselves with one group and alienate the other. FLOSS can also be used as a neutral term when discussing free / open source software with those of differing ideological viewpoints.

Historically, FLOSS was first used as a project acronym by Rishab Aiyer Ghosh. In 2001 the European Commission (EC) used the phrase when they funded a study on the topic, and in July 2002 they further popularised the acronym by publishing both a FLOSS survey and study and a FLOSS workshop report. The EC chose FLOSS as an inclusive acronym that hopefully would not further antagonize the main participants in the naming controversy. Although neither side has shown much enthusiasm for FLOSS or any other all inclusive phrase, Richard Stallman has acknowledged and recommended use of the phrase Free/Libre/Open Source Software by those who refuse to commit themselves explicity to his philosophical approach.

In constructing the FLOSS phrase, the French/Spanish word libre was included to emphasize the "freedom from entanglements" meaning of the English word free, as opposed to the unintended (but frequently assumed) "pay no money" meaning. The similarly derived acronym FOSS avoids using libre not because of any disagreement with this clarification, but to avoid collision with the English word "floss".

Libre Knowledge

Free knowledge implies freedom to read, listen to, watch, or otherwise experience explicit knowledge to learn from, copy, adapt and use it for any purpose; contribute new insights and share these for the common good; and all of this with free software.

Libre Content

Free content, or free information, is any kind of functional work, artwork, or other creative content having no legal restriction relative to people's freedom to use, redistribute, improve, and share the content. Importantly, when free content is modified, expanded, or incorporated within another work, the resulting work must also be distributable as free content (share-alike). To be considered free content, a work must allow modification and redistribution.

So free content encompasses all works in the public domain and also those copyrighted works whose licenses honor and uphold the freedoms mentioned above. Because the law by default grants copyright holders monopolistic control over their creations, copyrighted content must be explicitly declared free, usually by the referencing or inclusion of licensing statements from within the work.

A work in the public domain cannot be licensed because, by definition, its copyright has expired or has been relinquished. However, such a work is still considered free content, because it may be used for any purpose whatsoever. Free content can be viewed by all at no cost.

Besides free as in freedom, there is also another important meaning of the word free: free of charge. The two meanings of the term free are often illustrated with the phrases "free as in beer," which alludes to monetary price or cost but has little to do with freedom, and "free as in speech," which alludes to the widely recognized freedom of speech (see, for example, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution), but which has little to do with monetary price or cost. The usage of "free" in "free content" carries only the latter meaning -- as in speech -- because the emphasis is on everyone's freedom to engage with the content, understand it, modify it, and share it with others. This ambiguity in the word free can create confusion, especially since many (but by no means all) free content works are also available at no charge.

Many languages other than English use two different words for these distinct concepts. In English, it is sometimes useful to use two less common but more precise words, the first adopted from French or Spanish and the second from Latin (or Spanish): libre (meaning free as in speech) and gratis (meaning free as in beer). In these terms, free-content works are always libre but not necessarily gratis.

Free content licenses generally differ from open content licenses in that they require a "source" copy of the content to be provided. For example, a free content publisher should make the source document (e.g. InDesign or word-processor file) available along with a PDF, which in this case would be considered the "object" copy of the creative work. Some free content licenses have stronger requirements. For example, the GNU Free Documentation License not only requires that a "source" copy of the content is provided, but that the source copy should be in a "transparent" format, in other words, in an open format whose specification is freely available to everybody.

Free-content licenses may be copyleft-in which case modifications of the work must themselves be distributed only under the terms of the original free license-or else they are non-copyleft, which means that the licensed work may be modified and then distributed under a different license, even one that is less free.

Most free-content licenses contain provisions specifying that derivative works must attribute or give credit to the authors of the original, a requirement which promotes intellectual honesty and discourages plagiarism without imposing so great a burden as to weaken the claim of such licenses to being truly free.

The Design Science License (DSL), and GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) are copyleft licenses for free content. The FreeBSD Documentation License is an example of a non-copyleft license. The GNU General Public License (GPL) can also be used as a free content license.

Other examples of free content licenses are some of those published by Creative Commons when commercial use and derivative works are not restricted, although they do not require a "source" copy of the license be provided. Note that not all Creative Commons licenses are free content as defined here. The Libre Society project also has some open content licenses and a critique of the creative commons philosophy.

Open Content

Open content, coined by analogy with "open source" (though technically it is actually share-alike with no non commercial prohibition), describes any kind of creative work including articles, pictures, audio, and video that is published in a format that explicitly allows the copying of the information. Content can be either in the public domain or under a license like the GNU Free Documentation License. "Open content" is also sometimes used to describe content that can be modified by anyone; there is no closed group, like a commercial encyclopedia publisher, responsible for all the editing.

It is possible that the first documented case of Open Content was with the Royal Society, where they aspired toward information sharing across the globe as a public enterprise. The commonality is difficult to dismiss. The words "open content" were first put together in this context by David Wiley, then a graduate student at Brigham Young University, who founded the OpenContent project and put together the first content-specific (non-software) license in 1998 with input from Eric Raymond, Tim O'Reilly, and others.

Like the debate between the titles "open source" and "free software", open content materials can also be described as free content, although technically they describe different things. For example, the Open Directory Project is open content but is not free content. The main difference between licenses is the definition of freedom; some licenses attempt to maximize the freedom of all potential recipients in the future while others maximize the freedom of the initial recipient. Much of the ideals of the open source movement was led by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). One such application is their Open Courseware (see below).

The related term common content is occasionally used to refer to Creative Commons-licensed works. This takes after the Common Content project, which is an attempt to collect as many such works as possible.

MIT OpenCourseWare is not open-content material by the definition above, since copyrights remain with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology or members of its faculty.

Licenses:

• Creative Commons License (11 versions)

• Design Science License

• GNU Free Documentation License

• Open Content License

• Open Directory Project License used by Open Directory Project

• Open Game License - License of the Open Gaming Foundation, as drafted by Wizards of the Coast.

• Open Publication License - License for the Open Content Project

Public domain

This article is about public ownership of creative works not for use in relationship to public lands.

The public domain comprises the body of knowledge and innovation (especially creative works such as writing, art, music, and inventions) in relation to which no person or other legal entity can establish or maintain proprietary interests. This body of information and creativity is considered to be part of the common cultural and intellectual heritage of humanity, which in general anyone may use or exploit.

If an item is not in the public domain, this may be the result of a proprietary interest as represented by a copyright or patent. The extent to which members of the public may use or exploit an item in relation to which proprietary interests exist is generally limited. However, when copyright or patent restrictions expire, works will enter the public domain and may be used by anyone for any purpose.

A creative work is said to be in the public domain if there are no laws which restrict its use by the public at large. There may be no laws which establish proprietary rights in relation to the work, or the work or its subject matter may be specifically excluded from existing laws.

The underlying idea which is expressed or manifested in the creation of a work generally cannot be the subject of copyright law. Mathematical formulas will therefore generally form part of the public domain, to the extent that their expression in the form of software is not covered by copyright.

Works created before copyright and patent laws also form part of the public domain. The Bible and Qur'an, the works of Homer and the inventions of Archimedes are in the public domain. However, copyright may exist in translations or new formulations of these works.

Although intellectual property laws are not designed to prevent facts from entering the public domain, collections of facts organized or presented in a creative way, such as categorized lists, may be copyrighted. Collections of data with intuitive organization, such as alphabetized directories like telephone directories, are generally not copyrightable. In some countries copyright-like rights are granted for databases, even those containing mere facts. A sui generis database rights regime is in place in the European Union.

Works of the United States Government and various other governments are excluded from copyright law and may therefore be considered to be in the public domain.

Creative Commons, an organization which promotes the migration of works into the public domain as well as copyleft licensing schemes, holds that:

" Public access to literature, art, music, and film is essential to preserving and building on our cultural heritage. Many of the most important works of American culture have drawn upon the creative potential of the public domain. Frank Capra's It's a Wonderful Life is a classic example of a film that did not enjoy popular success until it entered the public domain. Other icons such as Snow White, Pinocchio, Santa Claus and Uncle Sam grew out of public domain figures. "

Open Document Format

The OpenDocument format (ODF), short for the OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications, is an open document file format for saving and exchanging editable office documents such as text documents (including memos, reports, and books), spreadsheets, charts, and presentations. This standard was developed by the OASIS industry consortium, based upon the XML-based file format originally created by OpenOffice.org.

The standard was publicly developed by a variety of organizations, is publicly accessible, and can be implemented by anyone without restriction. The OpenDocument format is intended to provide an open alternative to proprietary document formats including the popular but undocumented DOC, XLS, and PPT formats used by Microsoft Office, as well as Microsoft Office Open XML format (this latter format has various licensing requirements that prevent some competitors from using it). Organizations and individuals that store their data in an open format such as OpenDocument avoid being locked in to a single software vendor, leaving them free to switch software if their current vendor goes out of business, raises its prices, changes its software, or changes its licensing terms to something less favorable.

OpenDocument is the only standard for editable office documents that has been vetted by an independent recognized standards body, has been implemented by multiple vendors, and can be implemented by any supplier (including proprietary software vendors as well as developers using open source software licenses such as the GNU LGPL or GNU GPL).

Since one objective of open formats like OpenDocument is to guarantee long-term access to data without legal or technical barriers, governments have become increasingly aware of open formats as a public policy issue. For example, in 2002, Dr. Edgar David Villanueva Nuñes, a lawyer and Congressman of the Republic of Perú, wrote a letter to Microsoft Peru raising questions about free and permanent document access with proprietary formats. Europe and Massachusetts in particular have been examining the ramifications of selecting a document format.