mataroa-blog
Prefer “free software” over “open source”
Actually, Mataroa is 100% free software, and what the creator stands for is not merely open source, but Free Software. I replaced the words in the two occasions “open source” appeared.
Hi @xplosionmind! Thanks for suggesting this! I'm still unsure of what terms and keywords I should be using, which is the reason I have not responded to this PR by now. The latest non-open-source yet source-available licenses muddy the waters even futher. I'll wait until later. Thanks again!
I see, indeed MIT license is not considered “free”. As I understand, it is not so because it allows the software protected under this license to be used also in proprietary apps, while other licenses (such as AGPL) require any further modification or use in other software to be open, and free (“free” as in “freedom”).
In any case, I believe that regardless the license, it is more a matter of philosophy and approach: any software that respects the following four fundamental freedoms defining Free Software should make it named as such.
- Freedom to use the code
- Freedom to understand, analyze, study the code
- Freedom to edit and improve the code
- Freedom to share the edited version of the code (I’d say that this is the freedom to publish any fork of a project)
I think Mataroa respects all four!
To be clear: in terms of legal enforcement, ultimately it is the license that matters (and I believe it would not be bad to change license!), but changing the wording would be a great first step!
More context:
- Write Free Software
- Free software definition and approved licenses on the Free Software Foundation’s website
- Free Software licensing FAQs
@xplosionmind I think the MIT license is considered free as well. Of course, we also do respect these four freedoms. I just like the term open source more because I find it easier to explain, without getting too political. But in any case, I'll propose that we change our license to AGPL. I'll merge this too.