| Where are you getting that the BSD license isn't Free Software? Look at https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ISC "This license is sometimes also known as the OpenBSD License. It is a free software license" You can also find the "BSD" licenses on there but they are frowned on because BSD license (to Stallman) is an ambiguous term. The Free Software Definition gives you the 4 freedoms[1]: "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this." Since the BSD, ISC, MIT, X11 licenses all give you the 4 freedoms, they are, by the FSF's definition a Free Software License. The GPL is also by the FSF's definition a Free Software License. Since the BSD, ISC, MIT, and X11 all meet the Open Source Definition[2] they are Open Source licenses according to the OSI. Since the GPL also meets the Open Source definition, the OSI consider it an Open Source license. If you read https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... Stallman states that Free Software doesn't have to do with copyleft vs permissive:
"Another misunderstanding of “open source” is the idea that it means “not using the GNU GPL.” This tends to accompany another misunderstanding that “free software” means “GPL-covered software.” These are both mistaken, since the GNU GPL qualifies as an open source license and most of the open source licenses qualify as free software licenses. There are many free software licenses aside from the GNU GPL." [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
[2] https://opensource.org/osd-annotated |