There are some licenses effectively like public domain, such as zero-clause BSD, CC0, WTFPL, Unlicense, etc. GPL does not restrict commercial use any more than

There are some licenses effectively like public domain, such as zero-clause BSD, CC0, WTFPL, Unlicense, etc. GPL does not restrict commercial use any more than non-commercial use. What it does restrict is adding additional restrictions, it requires source code to be distributed, and it does not allow disallowing the user to substitute their own version. If the source is available to be perused I think it is called "shared source" (or "source available"); "open source" is a subset of that, and is according to the OSI definition. "Free software" is also a subset of "source available". "OSI approved" is a subset of "open source" because OSI approved does not include public domain, even if it is still open source (which in some cases it is) (also some stuff that meets the OSI definition (by both words and intention) might not be OSI approved because OSI has not looked at it yet). And then there is also "FOSS".