staticbits.thefnf.org/archive/latex-docs/definition.tex

\documentclass[11pt]{article}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{geometry}

\title{\huge \bf Free Network Definition}
\date{}

\newcommand{\statement}[1]{\textbf{#1} \medskip}

\begin{document}

\begin{figure}[t]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{thefnf-logo.png}
\end{figure}

\maketitle
\thispagestyle{empty}
\pagestyle{empty}

\statement{The fundamental dialectic of our struggle is this: will we be
  enslaved by our technology, or liberated by it? It was in cognizance of this
  notion, and in service to our collective freedom that the Free Software
  Movement was born. It is in this spirit that we aim here to define exactly
  what it means to say that a network is free. We hope that the existence of
  this definition will help illuminate the path to a more just world.}
\\
\\
Our intention is to build communications systems that are owned by the people
that use them, that allow participants to own their own data, and that use
end-to-end encryption and cryptographic trust mechanisms to assure privacy. We
call such systems `free networks' and they are characterized by the following
five freedoms:

\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Freedom 0) \\
    The freedom to participate in the network.}
  
  Freedom 0 regards your right to organize cooperative networks.  Conventional
  networks are characterized by a distinction between provider and user. This
  mode of organization encourages network operation in the service of
  self-interest. The provider builds and owns the infrastructure, and the user
  pays for access. In a free network, however, nodes connect to one another,
  rather than to a single, monolithic provider. By nature of its design, a free
  network is owned by those that make use of it. Participants act as providers
  and users as the same time, and growth is auto-distributed by treating any
  profits as investment. In this way, those that join the network are able to
  become owners. This mode of organization encourages network operation in the
  service of the common good.
  
\newpage
\item \textbf{Freedom 1) \\
    The freedom to determine where one's bits are stored.}

  Freedom 1 regards your right to own the material stores of your data.
  Conventional networks encourage (if not force) their participants to store
  their data in machines which are under the administrative auspices of an
  external service provider or host. Most folks are not able to serve data from
  their homes. Participants ought to be free to store their own data (so that
  it is under their care) without sacrificing their ability to publish it.
    
\item \textbf{Freedom 2) \\
    The freedom to determine the parties with whom one's bits are shared.}

  Freedom 2 regards your right to control access to your data.  Data mining and
  the monetization of sharing has become common practice. Participants should
  be free to choose those with whom they would like to share a given piece of
  information. Only someone who owns their own data can fully exercise this
  freedom, but it is an issue regardless of where the relevant bits are stored.

\item \textbf{Freedom 3) \\
    The freedom to transmit bits to one's peers without the prospect of
    interference, interception or censorship.}

  Freedom 3 regards the right to speak freely with your peers.  Information
  flows in conventional networks are routinely and intentionally intercepted,
  obstructed, and censored. This is done at the behest of corporate and state
  actors around the world. In a free network, private communications should
  remain unexamined from the time they enter the network until the time they
  reach their destination.

\item \textbf{Freedom 4) \\
    The freedom to maintain anonymity, or to present a unique, trusted
    identity.}
  
  Freedom 4 regards your right to construct your own identity There is
  increasing pressure to forbid anonymity, and yet trustworthy communications
  remain rare. While it is essential to liberty that individuals be able to
  remain anonymous in the online public sphere, it is also essential that they
  be able to construct and maintain persistent, verifiable identities. Such
  identities might bear a legal name, a common name, or an avatar that masks
  one's corporeal self -- individuals could have many such identities, and
  switch between them at will. Clear delineation between anonymous,
  pseudonymous, and onymous actors would enable all of us to better asses the
  trustworthiness of others on the network.
  
\end{itemize}

\end{document}