I write this because many people seem to have a misconception: that the “free software” somehow does not apply to non-copyleft (some even say non-GPL) software
My 2 pedantic cents: the source code of non-GPL software can still be called free software. But binaries compiled from e.g. an MIT codebase are only free software if the sources are also available. As the recipient of an MIT-licensed binary, you do not have freedom 3 and you'll have a hard time exercising freedom 1.
My 2 pedantic cents: the source code of non-GPL software can still be called free software. But binaries compiled from e.g. an MIT codebase are only free software if the sources are also available. As the recipient of an MIT-licensed binary, you do not have freedom 3 and you'll have a hard time exercising freedom 1.