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. 

 

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. 

You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish
your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way. 

The freedom to use a 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
without being required to communicate subsequently with the developer or any other specific entity. 

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. It is
ok if there is no way to produce a binary or executable form, but people must have the freedom to redistribute such forms should they find a way to make them. 

In order for the freedoms to make changes, and 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. 

In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the power to revoke the
license, without your doing anything to give cause, the software is not free. 

However, certain kinds of rules about the manner of distributing free software are acceptable, when they don't conflict with the central freedoms. For example,
copyleft (very simply stated) is the rule that when redistributing the program, you cannot add restrictions to deny other people the central freedoms. This rule does
not conflict with the central freedoms; rather it protects them. 

Thus, you may have paid money to get copies of GNU 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. 

``Free software'' does not mean ``non-commercial''. A free program must be available for commercial use. Commercial development of free software is no longer
unusual; such programs are free commercial software. 

Rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable, if they don't effectively 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 same condition. (Note that such a rule still leaves you
the choice of whether to publish the program or not.) 

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, we can still use it. 

See Categories of Free Software (18k characters) for a description of how ``free software,'' ``copylefted software'' and other categories of software relate to each
other. 

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. 

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 translations of "free software" into various languages. 

Finally, note that criteria such as those stated in this free software definition require careful thought for their interpretation. To decide whether a specific software
license qualifies as a free software license, we judge it based on these criteria to determine whether it fits their spirit as well as the precise words. If a license includes
unconscionable restrictions, we reject it, even if we did not anticipate the issue in these criteria. Sometimes a license requirement raises an issue that calls for
extensive thought before we can decide if the requirement is acceptable, including discussions with a lawyer. When we reach a conclusion, we sometimes update
these criteria to make it easier to see why certain licenses do or don't qualify.