‘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 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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

▲

typpilol 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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

▲

rerdavies 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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

	▲	Cogito 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No claim was made that it is not open source. The contention was over if it was a free license or not: > not free software which it is. As F3nd0 said, it's both.