Editing Free software (section)

== Context ==
[[File:Open-source-vs-freeware.svg|thumb|This [[Euler diagram]] describes the typical relationship between freeware and [[free and open-source software]] (FOSS): According to David Rosen from [[Wolfire Games]] in 2010, open source / free software (orange) is most often [[Gratis versus libre|gratis]] 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 |access-date=2016-01-18 |first=David |last=Rosen |publisher=[[Wolfire Games|wolfire]].com}}</ref>]]
Free software differs from:
* [[proprietary software]], such as [[Microsoft Office]], [[Microsoft Windows|Windows]], [[Adobe Photoshop]], [[Facebook]] or [[FaceTime]]. Users cannot study, change, and share their [[source code]].
* [[freeware]] or gratis<ref>{{Cite web |title=Definition of GRATIS |url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gratis |access-date=2023-05-08 |website=www.merriam-webster.com |language=en}}</ref> software, which is a category of proprietary software that does not require payment for basic use.

For software under the purview of [[copyright]] to be free, it must carry a [[software license]] whereby the author grants users the aforementioned rights. Software that is not covered by copyright law, such as software in the [[public domain]], is free as long as the source code is also in the public domain, or otherwise available without restrictions.

Proprietary software uses restrictive software licences or [[End-user license agreement|EULAs]] and usually does not provide users with the source code. Users are thus legally or technically prevented from [[patch (computing)|changing]] the software, and this results in reliance on the publisher to provide updates, help, and support. (''See also [[vendor lock-in]] and [[abandonware]]''). Users often may not [[reverse engineering|reverse engineer]], modify, or redistribute proprietary software.<ref name="Dixon" /><ref name="Graham" /> Beyond copyright law, contracts and a lack of source code, there can exist additional obstacles keeping users from exercising freedom over a piece of software, such as [[software patent]]s and [[digital rights management]] (more specifically, [[tivoization]]).<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|access-date = 29 December 2014|website = [[Free Software Foundation|fsf.org]]|last = Sullivan|first = John|author-link = William John Sullivan|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20141028230334/http://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2008/spring/the-last-mile-is-always-the-hardest/|archive-date = 28 October 2014}}</ref>

Free software can be a for-profit, commercial activity or not. Some free software is developed by volunteer [[Programmer|computer programmers]] 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 "[[open-source software]]" (an alternative, yet similar, concept coined in 1998), because the goals and messaging are quite dissimilar. According to the Free Software Foundation, "Open source" and its associated campaign mostly focus on the technicalities of the [[Open-source model|public development model]] 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 |author-link=Richard Stallman |first=Richard |last=Stallman |publisher=[[Free Software Foundation]] |date=2013-05-14 |access-date=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|[[Source-available software|Access to source code]] is a necessary but insufficient condition, according to both the Free Software and Open Source definitions.}} The loan adjective "[[wikt:libre|libre]]" is often used to avoid the ambiguity of the word "free" in the [[English language]], and the ambiguity with the older usage of "free software" as public-domain software.<ref name="infoworld1983" /> (''See [[Gratis versus libre]].'')