{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreienzo5vwknjssbfdkhukv7o4mplvwzr54rz5u5xxlq6pndyvu5abu",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:34cg4tn4iwemk3v5k3n3adwf/app.bsky.feed.post/3mf7722o5yww2"
  },
  "path": "/t/bookwyrm-itself-is-non-free-software/34108#post_4",
  "publishedAt": "2026-02-19T06:17:35.000Z",
  "site": "https://forum.f-droid.org",
  "textContent": "LemonCake:\n\n> While it’s an atypical license, it does seem a bit excessive to call it ‘proprietary software’. Does anyone know more about the reasoning behind the anti-feature description or if it would be appropriate to remove it?\n\nI’m not a lawyer, but if a license discriminates some kinds of users, it’s non-free. Everything that’s not free is proprietary.\n\nQuite ironic that an “anti-capitalist” license actually reinforces capitalist monopolies making “non-eligible” people use proprietary alternatives.",
  "title": "\"Bookwyrm itself is non-free software\""
}