Google Chrome 

is a cross-platform web browser developed by Google. It was first released in 2008

for Microsoft Windows, built with free software components from Apple WebKit and Mozilla Firefox.
[12] It was later ported to Linux, macOS, iOS, and Android, where it is the default browser.[13] The
browser is also the main component of Chrome OS, where it serves as the platform for web
applications.

Most of Chrome's source code comes from Google's free and open-source

software project Chromium, but Chrome is licensed as proprietary freeware.[11] WebKit was the
original rendering engine, but Google eventually forked it to create the Blink engine;[14] all Chrome
variants except iOS now use Blink.[15]

As of July 2021, StatCounter estimates that Chrome has a 65% worldwide browser market

share (after peaking at 72.38% in November 2018) on personal computers (PC),[16] is most used on
tablets (having surpassed Safari), and is also dominant on smartphones,[17][18] and at 63.59%
across all platforms combined.[19] Because of this success, Google has expanded the "Chrome"
brand name to other products: Chrome OS, Chromecast, Chromebook, Chromebit, Chromebox,
and Chromebase.

Free software (or libre software)[1][2] is computer software distributed under terms that allow users

to run the software for any purpose as well as to study, change, and distribute it and any adapted
versions.[3][4][5][6] Free software is a matter of liberty, not price; all users are legally free to do
what they want with their copies of a free software (including profiting from them) regardless of
how much is paid to obtain the program.[7][2] Computer programs are deemed "free" if they give
end-users (not just the developer) ultimate control over the software and, subsequently, over their
devices.[5][8]

The right to study and modify a computer program entails that source code—the preferred format
for making changes—be made available to users of that program. While this is often called "access
to source code" or "public availability", the Free Software Foundation (FSF) recommends against
thinking in those terms,[9] because it might give the impression that users have an obligation (as
opposed to a right) to give non-users a copy of the program.

Although the term "free software" had already been used loosely in the past,[10] Richard Stallman is
credited with tying it to the sense under discussion and starting the free-software movement in
1983, when he launched the GNU Project: a collaborative effort to create a freedom-
respecting operating system, and to revive the spirit of cooperation once prevalent
among hackers during the early days of computing.[11][12]

Free software thus differs from:

proprietary software, such as Microsoft Office, Google Docs, Sheets, and Slides or iWork from Apple.

Users cannot study, change, and share their source code.

freeware, 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 in the public domain too, or
otherwise available without restrictions.

Proprietary software uses restrictive software licences or EULAs and usually does not provide users
with the source code. Users are thus legally or technically prevented from 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 engineer, modify, or redistribute proprietary
software.[14][15] Beyond copyright law, contracts and lack of source code, there can exist additional
obstacles keeping users from exercising freedom over a piece of software, such as software
patents and digital rights management (more specifically, tivoization).[16]

Free software can be a for-profit, commercial activity or not. Some free software is developed by
volunteer computer programmers while other is developed by corporations; or even by both.[17][7]

Naming and differences with Open Source[edit]

Main article: 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" (a
younger vision 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 public development model and marketing free software to businesses, while
taking the ethical issue of user rights very lightly or even antagonistically.[18] 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.[19]

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".[a] The loan adjective "libre" is often used to avoid the ambiguity of the word
"free" in English language, and the ambiguity with the older usage of "free software" as public-
domain software.[10] (See Gratis versus libre.)

Definition and the Four Essential Freedoms of Free Software[edit]

Main article: The Free Software Definition

See also: Debian Free Software Guidelines and Open Source Definition

Diagram of free and nonfree software, as defined by the Free Software Foundation. Left: free
software, right: proprietary software, encircled: Gratis software
The first formal definition of free software was published by FSF in February 1986.[20] That
definition, written by Richard Stallman, is still maintained today and states that software is free
software if people who receive a copy of the software have the following four freedoms.[21][22] The
numbering begins with zero, not only as a spoof on the common usage of zero-based numbering in
programming languages, but also because "Freedom 0" was not initially included in the list, but later
added first in the list as it was considered very important.

Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program for any purpose.

Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you
wish.

Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute and make copies so you can help your neighbour.

Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified
versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits.

Freedoms 1 and 3 require source code to be available because studying and modifying software
without its source code can range from highly impractical to nearly impossible.

Thus, free software means that computer users have the freedom to cooperate with whom they
choose, and to control the software they use. To summarize this into a remark
distinguishing libre (freedom) software from gratis (zero price) software, the Free Software
Foundation says: "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'".[21] (See Gratis versus libre.)

In the late 1990s, other groups published their own definitions that describe an almost identical set
of software. The most notable are Debian Free Software Guidelines published in 1997,[23] and
the Open Source Definition, published in 1998.

The BSD-based operating systems, such as FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD, do not have their own
formal definitions of free software. Users of these systems generally find the same set of software to
be acceptable, but sometimes see copyleft as restrictive. They generally advocate permissive free-
software licenses, which allow others to use the software as they wish, without being
legally forced to provide the source code. Their view is that this permissive approach is more free.
The Kerberos, X11, and Apache software licenses are substantially similar in intent and
implementation.