Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

Free software is defined by the FSFs list of freedoms and MIT licence certainly provides those freedoms.

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?

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.

Free software is software that doesn't cost any money, hence it is free.

You're confusing free software[0] with freeware[1]

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

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

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com