>GNU uses non-free CSS on their website.
Explain this /g/
Isn't that just the MIT license? Looks pretty free to me.
>non GPL compatible licence
re~
>>55476153
A CSS file is not a fucking software underage faggot. Fuck off
>>55476411
>software is the only thing that can be nonfree
>>55476497
>What is free software foundation
>>55476524
>X can be free/nonfree, therefore only X can be free/nonfree
>>55476259
>>55476268
MIT is GPL compatible.
This CSS is nonfree because of its obfuscation. It's no different than saying a binary is free because you can edit the machine code. Stallman must be notified at once.
>>55476411
css is software
you an fizzbuzz in css
it's a turing complete language
>>55476841
The prerequisites for software freedom are:
a. a free license; and
b. source availability.
This CSS isn't software, but a is satisfied in the file and b is satisfied by https://gnu.org/layout.css
>>55476497
Software is the only thing GNU cares whether it's nonfree, yes. In fact they only even care about client-side software, so servers can be as non-free as they want and GNU don't care.
>>55477236
>servers can be as non-free as they want
According to the GNU guys, they should be free for the server owners, but that being the case doesn't help the people who connect to the servers to do their computing on them. So yes, they do care but won't boycott a service which requires connecting to a machine running any amount of nonfree software.
>>55476974
If you know the numeric type you're using (so that the maximum number of iterations is statically bounded), you can write FizzBuzz for a Turing-incomplete system. A better question is whether you could implement 3-SAT in CSS, and I don't know the language well enough to know.
Can you read OP?
>>55476546
Yes, it is. FSF is a fucking software foundation massive retard.
>>55480555
>we have a bunch of Chinese slaves maintaining out servers
>but it's okay because they're not software, so they don't have to be free :^)
>>55480691
Do you think the food also has to be free you literal nutjob? Do you fail to see no one is taking your logically flawed implications seriously?
>>55480764
>people can't be free, goy! if they could, then food would have to be, then cats could marry dogs, and where would it end??
>>55481148
>>55480691
>>55476546
>>55476497
Is memetexting the only line of defence you can think of whenever you feel cornered?
I'm not surprised, considering how many times you got buttravaged ITT.
>>55481289
How about "I only care if it's my software that's free" instead of "only software can be free?" Because obviously more than software can give freedom.
>>55480764
>it's okay if food comes with a bunch of terms and conditions that limit your use
I don't think I follow, anon-kun
>>55481488
Go cry to UN for your free food and shelter SJW faggot, FSF is a software foundation
>>55476153
Literally the same thread as yesterday, great job OP.
>>55481535
>on /g/
>still doesn't know the difference between libre and gratis
