"Permissive licenses do guarantee freedom for users."
Not really.
I might distribute program Foo under a permissive license that merely
requires preservation of copyright notices and nothing else. In one case I
give a copy of the program to Person A with source code and give them those
same permissions to modify, redistribute, etc. In the second case I give
Person B a copy of only a binary with nothing else. In each case I have
complied with the license but in the first case, Person A has freedom while
Person B does not. (Refer to the free software definition for why it's
non-free for Person B.) This shows why the same program can be both free and
non-free at the same time, depending on the specifics of the circumstances.
This kinda goes to what I was talking about with websites: Some people claim
that there is, somehow, something wrong with LibreJS because it blocks jQuery
but there isn't. Just like my program Foo, jQuery can be free or non-free
depending on its manner of distribution. A website distributing only a
minified version of their JavaScript without anything else really isn't
passing on freedom to the people running said JavaScript -- it's more like my
example with Person B -- and LibreJS is correctly identifying and blocking
that. If people find that they run into this a lot on the internet that just
goes to show how many websites are more like my Person B example and aren't
properly passing on freedom to the people running the JavaScript on their
site and how big of a problem this is & needs to be addressed.
