5 ms·
I thought MIT wasn't free software as defined by the FSF? Open source would be the term for that. Free requires end users to receive source, open just allows y
by cryptarch 9y ago
I thought MIT wasn't free software as defined by the FSF?
Open source would be the term for that. Free requires end users to receive source, open just allows you to use the source if you have a copy.
- pjmlp 9y agoFree software is software that doesn't cost any money, hence it is free.
- lucb1e 9y agoAlthough it is often the case that free software (or libre software, or whatever you want to call it) is available at no cost, the term "free software" generally does not refer to the price but to the given freedoms.
- Karellen 9y agoYou're confusing free software[0] with freeware[1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeware
- nailer 9y agoFree software is defined by the FSFs list of freedoms and MIT licence certainly provides those freedoms.
- cryptarch 9y agoFair enough, I got hung up on the lack of guarantees to distribute code alongside compiled applications. Would you say compiled MIT programs are still "free software" when they don't come with the source code?
- nailer 9y agoFreedom 1 (see https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html) depends on whether the source code is available, not whether the source comes with the binary.