OSI considers it valid[0]. The issue FSF has[1] is a requirement for publishing source code which IMO is very underspecified (i mean FSF's issue, not the licens

OSI considers it valid[0]. The issue FSF has[1] is a requirement for publishing source code which IMO is very underspecified (i mean FSF's issue, not the license's which seems to not be anything special). I can't see how exactly that makes the license non-free, if anything it ensures the source will be available. The issues DFSG had can be found here[2] but they're also not something that would be an issue in practice for the compiler itself - the most practical issue would be the requirement to provide the code for a year but in practice OWv2 is published via GitHub anyway (and i doubt if it moved anywhere else anyone involved would say "no" if asked to provide sources in case they somehow become inaccessible to the entire internet before a year passes). Also none of those are "not free enough" (FSF claims so but it doesn't seem to explain why) and they're really about the license itself, not how it applies in practice to OpenWatcom. [0] https://opensource.org/licenses/Watcom-1.0 https://opensource.org/licenses/Watcom-1.0 [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Watcom https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Watcom [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/07/msg00014.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/07/msg00014.html