>>63
I'm not talking about the AGPL. I'm talking about the Expat/MIT license. Free software is not defined as software licensed with any of the GPL variants, it is defined as software following the four essential freedoms. The four essential freedoms apply only to a piece of software, meaning, that piece of software is free. The MIT license, and other permissive licenses, fulfill all of the requirements that make a piece of software free.
The GPL is a political tool. It not only indicates that something is free software, it takes direct action to guarantee that the free project spawns more free projects. Permissively licensed software is free software, it just doesn't force spawning of more free software.
>>64
That's true, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. Even if you do take the software and redistribute it, it's still entirely free software when taken from the original source. The original version still has the four essential freedoms.