"You couldn't be more wrong. The MIT is as free software as the GPL and
respects the four freedoms."
I think you've misunderstood. I was not attempting to evaluate the license
"freeness."
Rather, we all know that programs under a permissive license can be turned
into something proprietary. Therefore, the "it's jQuery and so it must be
free" argument doesn't apply because you have to ask the additional question:
"Have they forwarded those freedoms on by providing the source code with
copyright and license information?" (since they're not required to pass on
freedom.) If they have done so, it's free and LibreJS should recognize it as
such. Otherwise it's not since, as I explained, programs under a permissive
license can be turned into something proprietary and LibreJS is properly
blocking it. Yes, the website developer can elect to forward those four
freedoms on but are not required to. Another way to ask it might be, "Is it
free jQuery or proprietary jQuery?"
Hopefully that makes it clearer what I was talking about - not about how
"free" the license is, but that the "it's jQuery and must be free so LibreJS
shouldn't be blocking it" doesn't really work since it's a permissive license
and so is allowed for there to be websites with a proprietary version that
doesn't provide visitors with the needed freedoms. LibreJS should definitely
be blocking those cases where the website developers isn't passing on the
necessary freedoms.
