The point of my comment is to highlight how the OpenCopilot License is neither free nor open source. The MIT License (Expat License) is also a free software license, and you can use the FSF's link if you prefer:
https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Expat> Please do not use the Free Software Foundation's acronym, FOSS
> FOSS was initially defined by RMS: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition
> This nuance is explained here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html
Your two links contradict what you are saying. Through the Free Software Foundation, Richard Stallman defined the term free software, not the term FOSS (free and open source software). In fact, your second gnu.org link is an article in which Stallman criticizes the term FOSS and encourages people to switch to the term FLOSS (free/libre and open source software) instead. I am not as picky as Stallman about free/libre software getting 2 letters in the acronym instead of 1, so I tend to use the shorter and more common term FOSS. The acronym FOSS was intended to unify the free software community and the open source software community, and does not belong to the Free Software Foundation.
> FOSS leans Copyleft, which goes against the "without limitation" criteria you've used to characterize it.
Copyleft is a limitation on the license under which a piece of software can be redistributed, and not a limitation on whether the software can be redistributed.
If you want to nitpick, go ahead and substitute what I said with the text of the Free Software Definition: "Freedom to distribute (freedoms 2 and 3) means you are free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission to do so."
The OpenCopilot License does not meet that requirement, either.