4 ms·
That's not what it says. It's a table comparing Olive to Vanilla. In the "feature" column there is a row for "Free Software". It's not saying one is less free
by sublinear 6mo ago
That's not what it says.
It's a table comparing Olive to Vanilla. In the "feature" column there is a row for "Free Software".
It's not saying one is less free than the other. It's saying what you already know: MIT license is not copyleft.
- echoangle 6mo agoBut it’s saying that tailwind isn’t free software because it is MIT licensed. Why doesn’t MIT license count as free software?
- stvltvs 6mo agoBecause it's not Free Software™. https://www.osweekly.com/free-software-vs-open-source-why-the-distinction-still-matters/ https://www.osweekly.com/free-software-vs-open-source-why-th...
- Hasnep 6mo agoYou're right, open source and free software are not the same thing, but software licenced under the MIT licence is still free software. Even the FSF describes the MIT licence as a free software licence (see my other reply in this thread).
- sublinear 6mo agoYeah I'm still not following the loaded premise of this question. It's just a table telling people what the project is about. An MIT-licensed project trying to not scare people away might have the same comparison table in their readme. They'd just flip around the green checkmark and red X.
- HiPhish 6mo ago> That's not what it says. That's exactly what it says. There is a big fat in that row as if Tailwind were not Free Software because it is not Copyleft. If he wanted to point that out he could have used a separate row and written " (not copyleft though)" or something like that.