[maldonad0]

It's open source, not free software.

[F3nd0]

‘Free software’ and ‘open source software’ (as respectively defined by the FSF [1] and the OSI [2], which is how they’re usually used in practice) have overlapping definitions. The project in question is released into the public domain via the Unlicense, which qualifies as a free software ‘licence’. Many of the other projects use the MIT/Expat licence, which also qualifies as a free software licence.

[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html [2] https://opensource.org/osd

[satvikpendem]

If anyone is curious on FSF's comments about various licenses: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html

[typpilol]

I also use Unlicense. It's literally the most permissive license you can have lol

[rerdavies]

And how exactly does it not qualify as an open source license? Seems to meet the definition as far as I can see.

[tonypapousek]

The license says otherwise; hard to get freer than public domain.

[captbaritone]

I recall hearing that SQLite actually had some significant issues with choosing public domain as their license and somewhat regret the decision. Apparently it’s not a concept which has broad understating internationally, and there’s less legal precedent in a software context which has made it harder for some teams to adopt due to concerns from legal departments.

[SoKamil]

What is the stance of Your Average Corp’s security department on public domain software? Do they accept software under such licensing (or lack thereof)?

[tripplyons]

Open source is a more informative term for this than free software. Not all free software is open source, but all open source software is free.

Edit: I was not aware of the FSF's definition. I was using a definition of free software being software that you can use without having to pay for it.

[lioeters]

Aside from the posted library sj.h which is in public domain (compatible with the definition of "free software"), the author's other projects mostly use the MIT license.

The MIT license upholds the four essential freedoms of free software: the right to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software.

It is listed under "Expat License" in the list of GPL-compatible Free Software licenses.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

[ramses0]

"Source Available" and "Open Source" (with an OSI-approved license) are the terms you're looking for. "Free as in speech, or free as in beer?" is your rallying cry.

[rerdavies]

Or Free as in Ebola, in the case of GPL-licensed software. Whatever happened to Free as in Air and Sunshine?