"it is inaccurate to describe it as free" - I agree that "free" is an overloaded term in the open source community, but the MIT license fits all the definitions of free that I am aware of (free of cost, freedom to use for whatever, freedom to modify, free to include in open source and commercial software)

@9072997 The FSF do not regard MIT licensed software as Free Software.

"This is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL." @Philip Kendall

@9072997, the MIT (a.k.a. "Expat") license specifies that anyone obtaining a copy of the licensed work does not need to pay a fee to deal in it, including to redistribute it. But that does not forbid anyone enjoying that privilege from charging others for the software. This is free as in "free speech", but not (ensured to be) free as in "free beer". More generally, these alternatives are not compatible: if the license for software X forbids you from a charge a fee to distribute it, then that is a restriction of your liberty. No license fits all the definitions of "free".

@JohnBollinger the license itself does permit free use. It doesn't force anyone to do anything (like providing the code or the software to others), but I'd argue that the license itself certainly "permits free use" as the OP said. It just doesn't "preserve free use" (in either the beer or speech version).

@JohnBollinger: In this community, we use a very specific definition of "free software," which is most explicitly articulated by Debian (but see also the FSF's explanation, as well as the related Open Source Definition). These definitions are generally understood to require that "free software" may be sold for a price, and the license must not restrict such sales.

More specifically, the MIT license is an "open source" approved license and is recognised by the OSI as an officially approved open source license (see opensource.org/licenses/MIT). However the MIT license is not a "free software" license and is not recognised by the FSF as a free software license but is recognised as being compatible with GPL. So the MIT license is "open source" but not "free software".

@PhilipKendall He changed my name from the LICENSE(file) of the repository. Is it illegal?

@user18915229 Without seeing the exact repositories in question, I don't think anyone should be stating an opinion on that.

@PhilipKendall Your statement If they replaced your name specifically in the copyright notice, then they are in violation of the license and you would be able to submit a claim against them. is true for that repository. LICENSE is edited(name) but core codes are copy-pasted

This is a bit strange considering that your script is just a wrapper for the is.gd service, and you are complaining about someone misusing your rather trivial code when your code is itself breaking the terms of use of the very service that is doing the actual work: "is.gd may NOT be used creating shortened URLs that: Link to malicious content (phishing ...".

@terdon I already mentioned that these are not actual repository, these are just example. However, the original author of that example repo says Legal Disclaimer.FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. Whatever, it's his concern.

If you're not prepared to link to the actual repositories in question, only you can make a judgement on whether it is actually a copyright violation or not. Or talk to your lawyer.

Can someone explain to me on which ground "MIT - licensed software is not free" can be argued? @PhilipKendall @siebetman Can you link me to the distinction, please (I know the OSI definition of OSS). What is hence free? Only public domain / CC-0?

@planetmaker The point I was trying to make (which I admit I didn't express well) is that the FSF very much prefer actual copyleft licenses like the GPL rather than permissive licenses.

OK, no doubt they do that. But do they really call permissive licenses 'non-free' (which they must, if they are not free). I somewhat doubt that.