Olive CSS: Lisp powered vanilla CSS utility-Class A la Tailwind(codeberg.org)

13 pointsby jjba238 hours ago2 comments

TranspectiveDev3 hours ago
[dead]
VPenkov8 hours ago
The comparison section says the MIT license is not "free" because it's not copyleft. How come is more permissive considered less free?
- Hasnep4 hours ago
  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.
  https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Expat
- 7 hours ago
  undefined
- sublinear6 hours ago
  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.
  - echoangle6 hours ago
    But it’s saying that tailwind isn’t free software because it is MIT licensed. Why doesn’t MIT license count as free software?
    stvltvs6 hours ago
    Because it's not Free Software™.
    https://www.osweekly.com/free-software-vs-open-source-why-th...
    Hasnep4 hours ago
    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).
    sublinear6 hours ago
    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.