Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by cryptarch 3327 days 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.
2 comments
nailer 3327 days ago
Free software is defined by the FSFs list of freedoms and MIT licence certainly provides those freedoms.
link
cryptarch 3327 days ago
Fair 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?

link
nailer 3327 days ago
Freedom 1 (see 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.
link
pjmlp 3327 days ago
Free software is software that doesn't cost any money, hence it is free.
link
Karellen 3326 days ago
You're confusing free software[0] with freeware[1]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeware

link
lucb1e 3327 days ago
Although 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.
link