There doesn't seem to be a free version at all. There is an evaluation version which is meant to tide you over until you decide to buy or abandon ST. It wouldn't be right to promote such an arrangement as a "free version".
The evaluation version is free and it works forever. If the developers were not OK with that, they would put a time limit on it. Since they haven't, that means they're OK with it.
If you use Sublime Text professionally and you get audited/noticed, not having a licence would be a big mistake. $70 is pittance for "enterprise" software, plus I wouldn't want to work with somebody who's effectively dishonest.
If you're an amateur (in the literal sense, not as an insult), then you might be more inclined to pirate it. I guess the developers are savvy enough to realise this, and just put a nag-screen in instead.
Bottom line, some people have the luxury of having such well-paid jobs that open source is a real possibility nowadays. But ST is likely someone's income/living, and shafting the devs isn't cool at all. If you're not happy with this, you can always make another editor, but it turns out to be fairly hard to do (see Atom).
There is not a free version. There's an evaluation version that doesn't lock out any features, but it's not provided to you for free -- you have to pay to continue using it. If you're just using it as your text editor for free you're abusing the honour system.
But does the license permit you to use the free version to do work? The issue isn't the alerts it's compliance with the spirit and letter of the shareware version.
"Sublime Text may be downloaded and evaluated for free, however a license must be purchased for continued use."
There is no separate shareware version. What makes Sublime unique is that it never stops working; it's evaluation period is open, and treats the user as an adult to do the right and legal thing.
True - winrar and mirc also come to mind. In today's world of app store DRM at one end and open source options at the other, it's definitely a stand-out more than it would have been a few years ago.
Reaper a DAW (Digital Audio Workstation) is $65 and is free to evaluate and doesn't hinder usage. All other DAWs are betweem $250-$500++. I use to use one that cost $1,000 I use Reaper and thrown my money at them.
I do get mad when people don't give them money since I really appreciate the model.
I don't want to get lost in semantics argument but "a free version that you're supposed to pay for if you continue to use it for extended periods" is exactly what I meant by shareware.
It's great that Sublime doesn't have strong DRM, but using the free version indefinitely is just as wrong as using a cracked version of Photoshop, IMHO.
Does it really bother you? Sometimes I'm concerned I'm a sociopath or similar because I don't care at all about the honor of complying with the license. If no one sees me pirate it and there are no consequences, who cares?
I do care about my fellow developer who wrote ST and seems a nice guy, which is a reason to pay... So maybe I'm not a sociopath after all.
Yes, it bothers me and I don't really understand the distinction you're making: the developer you admire is the one who wrote that license that "requires" payment so you pay for it because they asked you to, not because anyone's watching.
And as someone running a business, it is a significant and unnecessary liability to use pirated or unlicensed software.