(standards.info.gz) References

Info Catalog (standards.info.gz) Managing Releases (standards.info.gz) Top (standards.info.gz) GNU Free Documentation License 
 
 8 References to Non-Free Software and Documentation
 ***************************************************
 
 A GNU program should not recommend use of any non-free program.  We
 can't stop some people from writing proprietary programs, or stop other
 people from using them, but we can and should refuse to advertise them
 to new potential customers.  Proprietary software is a social and
 ethical problem, and the point of GNU is to solve that problem.
 
    The GNU definition of free software is found on the GNU web site at
 `http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html', and the definition of
 free documentation is found at
 `http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html'.  A list of important
 licenses and whether they qualify as free is in
 `http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html'.  The terms "free" and
 "non-free", used in this document, refer to that definition.  If it is
 not clear whether a license qualifies as free under this definition,
 please ask the GNU Project by writing to <licensing@gnu.org>.  We will
 answer, and if the license is an important one, we will add it to the
 list.
 
    When a non-free program or system is well known, you can mention it
 in passing--that is harmless, since users who might want to use it
 probably already know about it.  For instance, it is fine to explain
 how to build your package on top of some widely used non-free operating
 system, or how to use it together with some widely used non-free
 program.
 
    However, you should give only the necessary information to help those
 who already use the non-free program to use your program with it--don't
 give, or refer to, any further information about the proprietary
 program, and don't imply that the proprietary program enhances your
 program, or that its existence is in any way a good thing.  The goal
 should be that people already using the proprietary program will get
 the advice they need about how to use your free program with it, while
 people who don't already use the proprietary program will not see
 anything to lead them to take an interest in it.
 
    If a non-free program or system is obscure in your program's domain,
 your program should not mention or support it at all, since doing so
 would tend to popularize the non-free program more than it popularizes
 your program.  (You cannot hope to find many additional users among the
 users of Foobar if the users of Foobar are few.)
 
    Sometimes a program is free software in itself but depends on a
 non-free platform in order to run.  For instance, many Java programs
 depend on the parts of Sun's Java implementation which are not yet free
 software, and won't run on the GNU Java Compiler (which does not yet
 have all the features) or won't run with the GNU Java libraries.  We
 hope this particular problem will be gone in a few months, when Sun
 makes the standard Java libraries free software, but of course the
 general principle remains: you should not recommend programs that
 depend on non-free software to run.
 
    Some free programs encourage the use of non-free software.  A typical
 example is `mplayer'.  It is free software in itself, and the free code
 can handle some kinds of files.  However, `mplayer' recommends use of
 non-free codecs for other kinds of files, and users that install
 `mplayer' are very likely to install those codecs along with it.  To
 recommend `mplayer' is, in effect, to recommend the non-free codecs.
 We must not do that, so we cannot recommend `mplayer' either.
 
    In general, you should also not recommend programs that themselves
 strongly recommend the use of non-free software.
 
    A GNU package should not refer the user to any non-free documentation
 for free software.  Free documentation that can be included in free
 operating systems is essential for completing the GNU system, or any
 free operating system, so it is a major focus of the GNU Project; to
 recommend use of documentation that we are not allowed to use in GNU
 would weaken the impetus for the community to produce documentation
 that we can include.  So GNU packages should never recommend non-free
 documentation.
 
    By contrast, it is ok to refer to journal articles and textbooks in
 the comments of a program for explanation of how it functions, even
 though they be non-free.  This is because we don't include such things
 in the GNU system even if we are allowed to--they are outside the scope
 of an operating system project.
 
    Referring to a web site that describes or recommends a non-free
 program is in effect promoting that software, so please do not make
 links (or mention by name) web sites that contain such material.  This
 policy is relevant particularly for the web pages for a GNU package.
 
    Following links from nearly any web site can lead to non-free
 software; this is an inescapable aspect of the nature of the web, and
 in itself is no objection to linking to a site.  As long as the site
 does not itself recommend a non-free program, there is no need be
 concerned about the sites it links to for other reasons.
 
    Thus, for example, you should not make a link to AT&T's web site,
 because that recommends AT&T's non-free software packages; you should
 not make a link to a site that links to AT&T's site saying it is a
 place to get a non-free program; but if a site you want to link to
 refers to AT&T's web site in some other context (such as long-distance
 telephone service), that is not a problem.
Info Catalog (standards.info.gz) Managing Releases (standards.info.gz) Top (standards.info.gz) GNU Free Documentation License
automatically generated by info2html