"Free" in free software refers to freedoms, not price.
"Free" in "freeware" refers to price, not freedom.
The two are not at all synonymous although typically most free software is also freeware.
"Female" is fine as an adjective, just don't use it (or "male") as a noun.
Why? Thunderbird announced it is not adopting the Firefox EULA.
Librewolf mainly because that's the Firefox-type browser that comes with my distro (IceCat is there too, but it's based on ESR and not frequently updated).
Unfortunately Vivaldi is proprietary, so it's not an option for me.
Yeah I am unconvinced of this line of thought. If I use (say) Kate Editor to edit a document, do the developers of Kate need a license to the content of that document in order to save it to my desktop? Since the text content is stored in a Qt widget does Qt also need such a license? Linux itself carries the data from the application to the disk, do the Linux developers (all of them?) also need a license?
It is abnormal for a free software project to have an EULA (i.e. a contract that one must agree to in order to install and use the software). This particular EULA does not seem to be as onerous as most but it may still place substantial restrictions on use.
The acceptable use policy, for example, covers much more than just crime (including a prohibition on "graphic depictions of sexuality or violence"). However, it also specifically refers to "Mozilla services" so one could argue that it doesn't apply to normal usage of Firefox; however, the Firefox EULA also specifically claims it does. Is Firefox itself a Mozilla service? I would assume not under the usually understood definition of such, but it's not really clarified.
It's far easier to use something unburdened by an EULA, so I'm typing this from Librewolf.
Both of these appear to be proprietary, not actually free (libre).
Thank you for standing up for the free software definition. As someone who has been heavily critical of fauxpen source licenses including FUTO it's refreshing to see moderators taking a stance against it.
The main concern I have with this attempt (by FUTO and other organizations trying to "fix" open source) is that watering down the open source and free software definitions causes damage to the community/movement. Whether the FUTO EULA or any other proprietary license is "good enough" for an individual user is not the question (and I have even seen people argue in favor of fully-proprietary blob software on the basis of being "privacy friendly"); real free software disadvantages rightsholders in favor of users and communities, which is important in case those rightsholders go defunct or rogue.
I try to assume good faith as well but I am seriously considering the idea that FUTO is astroturfing free software spaces to promote its version of open source. Despite publicly backing down on their openwashing attempt Eron Wolf-in-sheeps-clothing seems very determined that open source is broken and needs fixing.
It should be noted that Heliboard does not "have glide typing" but rather it supports loading the proprietary Google swype library.
This article is clearly about beans, not onions.
"Free software" refers to freedom, not price. It's possible for free-as-in-freedom software to be sold.
"Freeware" is always about price, not freedom.