I was reading the question
Regardless the merit of that particular question, one answers states that according to the definition
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
However, I was under the impression that there is still some debate about what does or does not constitute a free software licence? A short note can be found on the related Wikipedia entry, but one can see that a few different bodies categorizes the different licenses: OSI, FSF, Debian, etc.
So using licences that are already available make it clear if you fall in one or another definition. However with custom-made licences, it does not seem too clear to me.
Can someone clarify that for me, or is there a universally accepted definition of "free software licence"?
Edit It came in the comments, as well as a VTC. So I should adress it in the question. I have read the question
and corresponding answers. I understand perfectly well the difference between free as in beer vs in speech. Let us forget about beers for the time being. Now, that question does not adress what I am asking here. There are different "free" licenses, most give some restriction. There are several bodies defining which licenses are free (I know of OSI, FSF and Debian, for example). They do not seem in effect, to agree on the freedom of certain licenses. So is there a more restricted, somewhat universal definition of a free software?
Note that I originally asked that question on meta, but was suggested to ask it here.