In the [Wikipedia article about Talmud](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud) it says that: > It records the teachings, opinions and disagreements of thousands of rabbis and Torah scholars. And if you know from books like [Tanya](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_%28Judaism%29) which references the book of *Nida* on the first page, in the first paragraph, in the first sentence, you know that Talmud likes to link things [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia) style, and then argue those things, trying to find patterns. What could be the pattern in linking a Wikipedia article and then talking about Wikipedia in an article about using Talmudic Techniques to understand Free Software? Apart from the obvious thing that Wikipedia with its intensive linking resembles the intensive linking found in Talmud. Based on the [Wikipedia article about the FSF's Free Software Awards](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FSF_Free_Software_Awards#Winners_2) the 2005 *Social benefit award* was given to Wikipedia itself. Yet if we look at the website of [FSF themselves](https://www.fsf.org/awards/sb-award) you would see that the Award was indeed given to Wikipedia, but not in 2005. It was given to Wikipedia on "Mar 29, 2006 12:00 AM". This is weird. And even weirder is the fact that the Wikipedia is not sighting anything to prove that it indeed got the Award. Then if you dig even deeper, the [article about this specific award on FSF](https://www.fsf.org/news/wikipedia-received-the-fsf-award-for-projects-of-social-benefit) is not from 2005 and not from 2006 but instead is from 2011. Something here does not add up. For the sake of clarity, lets set this one conundrum aside for a little and focus on what seems to be a slightly more pressing issue. Which is the question of: why did Wikipedia even received a Free Software Award in the first place? The article about this award ( the one from 2011 ) states the following: > This award is presented to the project or team responsible for applying free software, or the ideas of the free software movement, in a project that intentionally and significantly benefits society in other aspects of life. Does Wikipedia apply Free Software? Does Wikipedia apply the ideas of Free Software? And does Wikipedia intentionally and significantly benefits society? To answer this we need to first answer what Free Software even is. In the [Wikipedia article about the Definition of Free Software](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition) it links to a [GNU Bulletin Issue number 1](https://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull1.txt) from which it references this piece of text: > The word "free" in our name does not refer to price; it refers to freedom. First, the freedom to copy a program and redistribute it to your neighbors, so that they can use it as well as you. Second, the freedom to change a program, so that you can control it instead of it controlling you; for this, the source code must be made available to you. For this text to make sense we need an agreeable definition of what "freedom", "program" and "source code" mean. In the original bulletin the word "freedom" appears just 3 times and all of them in the same piece quoted by Wikipedia, which is also quoted above this paragraph by this article. This does define the "free" in "free software" to be more related to "freedom" and less related to the absence of price. But it does not define the word "freedom" itself. The word "program" appears 7 times. The first use is in the section about GNU Emacs, where it says: > It is a fairly large program, around 525k on vaxes or 68000s, to which must be added space for the files you are editing, undo buffers, Lisp libraries loaded, and Lisp data such as recently killed text, etc. There appears to be no definition of what "vaxes" means, but it seems to be something related to size in kilobytes. Probably a way to store the program in Random Access Memory, since the paragraph later continues with: > This is not really a problem on a timeshared machine because most of that 525k is shared, but on a personal computer there may be nobody to share with. Thus, GNU Emacs probably could not be used on an IBM PC clone for lack of memory, unless you want to implement virtual memory in software within Emacs itself. Perhaps on an 80286 with 1 meg of memory you can win using their memory management. Based on [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-sharing) Time sharing means: > In computing, time-sharing is the concurrent sharing of a computing resource among many tasks or users by giving each task or user a small slice of processing time. This quick switch between tasks or users gives the illusion of simultaneous execution. It enables multi-tasking by a single user or enables multiple-user sessions. *I removed the references from this quote. Please refer to the original article for further references.* So it seems like on an old type time-sharing mainframe computer ( which were the size of buildings, and offered terminals to the users ) Emacs would not be a problem. Since those computers had at least 525k bytes of random access memory at any given point. And all users were effectively using the same memory. But on more modern "micro-computers" which were smaller and had only 1 terminal, this could be a waste, unless you have something like a "1 meg" ( which probably means 1 megabyte of RAM ). Yet it seems like this discussion about the size of Emacs ( while interesting in the context of various people calling Emacs bloated ) is not helping us much with understanding the meaning of the word "program". Apart from maybe the fact that a program takes memory. Then we have the 2 uses of the word "program" that the Wikipedia article about the definition of Free Software quotes. We have another mention of a program being large with a C compiler, ( probably some early version of GCC ). Finally under the section titled "Some Arguments for Gnu's Goals " Richard M. Stallman writes this: > Schools will be able to provide a much more educational environment by encouraging all students to study and improve the system code. Harvard's computer lab used to have the policy that no program could be installed on the system if its sources were not on public display, and upheld it by actually refusing to install certain programs. This might be a clue to the whole definition of Free Software. And this also might be a clue to the definitions of "program" and "source code". For instance the fact that it says "no program could be installed on the system if its sources were not on public display" suggests that "sources" or "source code" ( which we know from the short discussion about memory, could mean the same things, one being a short version of another ), must be a quality, or something related to a "program". If instead we will look at the [Wikipedia definition of a Computer Program](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_program) we will find this description: > A computer program is a sequence or set of instructions in a programming language for a computer to execute. As we know in the English language the word "sequence" is a fancy way to mean a list. We could argue that a "program" is a list of instructions. A check-list of sorts. And what a computer does, when running said program, is executing those instructions one by one in a sequence. But most importantly, a program is apparently implemented in a "programming language". If we look what Wikipedia has to say about "programming language" [we find out that](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_language) it is: > an engineered language for expressing computer programs. And that it: > typically allow software to be written in a human readable manner. "Typically", but apparently not always. If we look back at the article about Programming Languages we have a clue to try to describer it a bit more. > Execution of a program requires an implementation. There are two main approaches for implementing a programming language – compilation, where programs are compiled ahead-of-time to machine code, and interpretation, where programs are directly executed. "Machine code", "Directly Executed"? So we have one way to make a program that requires "compilation" and another way that doesn't not require it. That apparently is "human readable" all the way through. If we look at the definition of "Source Code" specifically, because that is what we want to know, to define Free Software, on Wikipedia, we find this explanation: > In computing, source code, or simply code or source, is human readable plain text that can eventually result in controlling the behavior of a computer. First of all this confirms the theory we had earlier about "source" being a shortened way to say "source code". Then we see something interesting. This source code is a "human readable" text. Presumably source code and the human readable program is the same thing. So is the following true: There are two types of software. Human Readable, source code, software, that is executed directly. And there is non-human readable machine code software. But how did machine code software was made if it isn't human readable? If we look at a definition of a Compiler which is linked to on Wikipedia, at the word "compilation". We find the following definition: > In computing, a compiler is software that translates computer code written in one programming language (the source language) into another language (the target language). The name "compiler" is primarily used for programs that translate source code from a high-level programming language to a low-level programming language (e.g. assembly language, object code, or machine code) to create an executable program. So we can simplify it, and say that all machine code, at least when it comes to software made by humans, must have been compiled from human readable source code. The end result is this machine code that the computer can run, but that a human cannot read. That the human cannot understand. And that would be hard for the human to make changes to. But there is always this other form of the same program. Same list of instructions. The source form. The form with which this program was made. The one that the human can read. The one that the human can understand. And the one that the human can change. Let's use this new understanding of ours to decipher the meaning of the paragraph we looked at earlier: > The word "free" in our name does not refer to price; it refers to freedom. First, the freedom to copy a program and redistribute it to your neighbors, so that they can use it as well as you. Second, the freedom to change a program, so that you can control it instead of it controlling you; for this, the source code must be made available to you. The idea here suddenly is much clearer. In order to have this "freedom" you must have the source code. Because without this source code you cannot see what the program does. You don't see the list of instructions. And you cannot edit said list of instructions so the program does what you want it to do. If you want to have freedom you must be able to "control it instead of it controlling you". From which we can also interpret a meaning of the word "freedom". Freedom is when you control yourself instead of somebody else ( or something else ) controlling you. From the same bulletin, this following quote seems to enforce this idea of freedom. And also clarify the idea of Free Software: > Complete system sources will be available to everyone. As a result, a user who needs changes in the system will always be free to make them himself, or hire any available programmer or company to make them for him. Users will no longer be at the mercy of one programmer or company which owns the sources and is in sole position to make changes. If we look at the [modern definition of Free Software on GNU's website](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) we would see the following 4 requirements for the program to be free: - The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). - The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. - The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2). - The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. Those 4 freedoms clarify in clear rule-set the vague ideas of Free Software from the first bulletin. We have a concrete way to judge whether the program is in control of the user. Or if a program is not following one of those rules, if the program is controlling the user instead. Except not everything is clear. Some of those rules seem redundant. In the definition of Free Software on Wikipedia ( again ) we see this quote: > A fourth freedom was later introduced to explicitly affirm the user's right to run the program. Because it was seen as more fundamental than the others, it was placed first. Since the existing freedoms were numbered one through three, this new one was designated "freedom zero". Okay. This explains why we count from zero. But why add this freedom in the first place? Isn't source code all you need to get the program under user's control? The mention of this on Wikipedia links to a footnote in the definition of Free Software on GNU's website. The one we took the list of the four freedoms from. Said footnote reads differently. > The reason they are numbered 0, 1, 2 and 3 is historical. Around 1990 there were three freedoms, numbered 1, 2 and 3. Then we realized that the freedom to run the program needed to be mentioned explicitly. It was clearly more basic than the other three, so it properly should precede them. Rather than renumber the others, we made it freedom 0. Why did they need to mention it explicitly? If you dig through the definition on the GNU's website, it provides clarifications for all 4 freedoms on the list. The clarification for freedom zero is this: > The freedom to run the program as you wish means that you are not forbidden or stopped from making it run. This has nothing to do with what functionality the program has, whether it is technically capable of functioning in any given environment, or whether it is useful for any particular computing activity. From this statement alone, we can reason that not all programs allow the user to run the program as the user wishes. Not all programs allow the user to execute the list of instructions it has for the computer, for any purpose the user wants to execute these instructions? This sounds silly... Why would this be true? If we look further, under the title "Legal considerations" we find the following text: > In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be permanent and irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the power to revoke the license, or retroactively add restrictions to its terms, without your doing anything wrong to give cause, the software is not free. Okay. Now we need a definition of the word "License". On Wikipedia the article for [License](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License) states: > A license is granted by a party (licensor) to another party (licensee) as an element of an agreement between those parties. So a license is a fancy way to say "agreement" or "consent". Under "Mass licensing of software" in the same article, the following text clarifies the use of licenses when it comes to software ( computer programs ) in particular: > Mass distributed software is used by individuals on personal computers under license from the developer of that software. Such license is typically included in a more extensive end-user license agreement (EULA) entered into upon the installation of that software on a computer. Typically, a license is associated with a unique code, that when approved grants the end user access to the software in question. From this whole thing we can deduce that the software is not "accessible" to the user, apparently even if the user had a copy, automatically. And that the user, legally speaking, must have the consent of the developer to use the program. If look at the designated article on Wikipedia about [software licenses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license). We see that: > Since the 1970s, software copyright has been recognized in the United States. Despite the copyright being recognized, most companies prefer to sell licenses rather than copies of the software because it enables them to enforce stricter terms on redistribution. Let's quickly define "copyright" to understand it correctly. In the [Wikipedia article about copyright](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright) we can read this: > A copyright is a type of intellectual property that gives its owner the exclusive legal right to copy, distribute, adapt, display, and perform a creative work, usually for a limited time. So, if software has copyright, the author of the software, the developer who holds the copyright, has the exclusive legal right to do anything meaningful with this program. Including running it. Which means that the developer is the one in control and therefor the developer controls the user. So the user has no freedom, unless the developer gives up his control over the software. Which is done by consenting to giving it up. Or in other words, by licensing the software such that it grants the 4 freedoms to the user legally. From this we learn that "Free Software" is not just a practical matter. It is both practical and legal matter. For the practical matter you must have source code. So you could practically, meaningfully control your software. And for the legal matter you have to have a good license that comes with the software, so when you are controlling your software, when you are exercising your freedom, you would not be punishable by law. This, by the way, explains why on GNU's website in the article called [Words to avoid](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html) they pledge people to avoid saying "Intellectual Property": > The term “intellectual property” carries a hidden assumption—that the way to think about all these disparate issues is based on an analogy with physical objects, and our conception of them as physical property. If people think of copyright as "freedom" because copyright gives the authors the control over the work they made, as if to say, this work is author's property of some kind, it by default defeats the whole idea of being able to control your software. If the software developer's control comes over the control of the user, we concentrate power at the developer level and practically have no freedom at the user level. Having power over somebody is distinct, in this case from having freedom. Freedom is when you control your copy. Power is when you control other people's copy. Therefor thinking of copyright as "freedom" does not make sense. Thinking of work as "intellectual property" does not make sense. Those are not instruments for freedom. Those are instruments for power. And instruments for power need to be defeated in order to have freedom. In a way thinking about a license as "consent" here does not make sense either. The consent should be the other way around. Using a piece of software without source code and a proper Free Software license should require a consent by the user, because that's who's freedom is at stake here. Not providing source code and a Free Software license to a user that does not consent to be restricted like this, is therefor a form on an injustice. That in my opinion gives us a satisfactory idea of the meaning of Free Software. So now we can finally answer the question from the beginning of this article. Does Wikipedia apply Free Software? Does Wikipedia apply the ideas of Free Software? And does Wikipedia intentionally and significantly benefits society? Based on how much we can learn from just Wikipedia ( and things it links to ) about complex topics such as Free Software ( as exemplified by this very article ) we can conclude that it indeed significantly benefits society. Based on the fact that every article on Wikipedia is under a [proper Free Software license](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ccbysa) we can conclude that it does apply the ideas of Free Software. And based upon the fact that Wikipedia runs on [MediaWiki software](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki) that has [its source code available](https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/plugins/gitiles/mediawiki/core/+/refs/heads/master) and that includes a Free Software license with it ( making the software Free ), we can conclude that Wikipedia applies Free Software as well. All 3 categories are checked in. Granting Wikipedia the Free Software Award. But because Wikipedia is so Talmudic at its core ( as you probably realized by now ), and because it it Talmudic probably by applying the ideas of Free Software. We can suggest a theory: Richard Stallman is not thorough because of some neuro-divergence or syndrome. Richard Stallman is thorough because he is Jewish. **Happy Hacking!!!**