Olive CSS: Lisp powered vanilla CSS utility-class a la Tailwind
1–10 of 15 posts
Re: Olive CSS: Lisp powered vanilla CSS utility-class a la Tailwind
#2The comparison section says the MIT license is not "free" because it's not copyleft. How come is more permissive considered less free?
Re: Olive CSS: Lisp powered vanilla CSS utility-class a la Tailwind
#3The comparison section says the MIT license is not "free" because it's not copyleft. How come is more permissive considered less free?
[deleted]
Re: Olive CSS: Lisp powered vanilla CSS utility-class a la Tailwind
#4The comparison section says the MIT license is not "free" because it's not copyleft. How come is more permissive considered less free?
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.
Re: Olive CSS: Lisp powered vanilla CSS utility-class a la Tailwind
#5The comparison section says the MIT license is not "free" because it's not copyleft. How come is more permissive considered less free?
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.
But it’s saying that tailwind isn’t free software because it is MIT licensed. Why doesn’t MIT license count as free software?
Re: Olive CSS: Lisp powered vanilla CSS utility-class a la Tailwind
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
But it’s saying that tailwind isn’t free software because it is MIT licensed. Why doesn’t MIT license count as free software?
Because it's not Free Software™.
https://www.osweekly.com/free-software-vs-open-source-why-th...
Re: Olive CSS: Lisp powered vanilla CSS utility-class a la Tailwind
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
But it’s saying that tailwind isn’t free software because it is MIT licensed. Why doesn’t MIT license count as free software?
Yeah 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.
Re: Olive CSS: Lisp powered vanilla CSS utility-class a la Tailwind
#8The comparison section says the MIT license is not "free" because it's not copyleft. How come is more permissive considered less free?
This seems to be a misunderstanding by the author, a licence doesn't have to be copyleft to be free software. Even the FSF describes the MIT licence as a free software licence (they prefer calling it the Expat licence).
> Expat License (#Expat) > > This is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.
Re: Olive CSS: Lisp powered vanilla CSS utility-class a la Tailwind
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it’s saying that tailwind isn’t free software because it is MIT licensed. Why doesn’t MIT license count as free software?
Because it's not Free Software™. https://www.osweekly.com/free-software-vs-open-source-why-th...
You'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).
Re: Olive CSS: Lisp powered vanilla CSS utility-class a la Tailwind
#10[dead]