What is truly free?

[vmavromatis]

From @coderobe :

what do you think about excluding uses-nonfree too, because i think it's only used when:

• some (potentially optional) dependencies are nonfree, which would already turn up in our list
• it is referring to, linking to, or endorsing problematic packages
• it integrates with problematic packages (can still be free!)

take mesa for example, the "issues" parabola identified are that it's recommending optional problematic software, but on its own mesa is licensed under MIT

[vmavromatis]

My take: I don't know.. It really depends on the definition. We could do it but then we would steer away from the FSF definition. I'm interested to hear more opinions.