Comment by spencerflem
2 years ago
You have one definition, of "free" but its not the only reasonable one.
Is MIT not free because it requires attribution? Is no code free because it cannot be used in ways that break the law?
Just because there are some restrictions does not make it completely unfree, and its fair for people to want to use what is the most natural word to refer to thing that are free enough for them. "OSI-approved" works if you want to be precise but one org does not have the right to dictate the use of a word as common as "open".
I don’t think I’ve said my definition of “free,” but restricting who can distribute my software seems pretty non-free to me.
I don’t think there’s a true, single definition, but I think maybe the closest to that would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition