4 ms·
> "non-free" (not GPLed) These two terms are not synonymous. Only proprietary software is "non-free". Software under free software licenses other than the G
by rekado 4y ago
> "non-free" (not GPLed)
These two terms are not synonymous. Only proprietary software is "non-free". Software under free software licenses other than the GPL (whether copyleft or pushover/"permissive") is never considered "non-free".
- josteink 4y agoPermissive licenses are considered non-free by the FSF, or at least RMS. He is very concerned about this, as you can see every time such a topic arises on the emacs-devel mailing-list.
- rekado 4y agoNo, they are not considered "non-free". Not even by RMS. Please provide evidence. Unsurprisingly RMS prefers GPL over pushover licenses, especially when it comes to Emacs and GCC, which he considers strategic tools in a fight against proprietary software. He has been opposed to depending on Clang when GCC is not suitable (again due to his fears that GCC would be used to build proprietary compilers), but this does not mean that he considers Clang to be non-free software.