A project does need a license in order for it to be considered 'Free Software.' It may not seem important but I can link you a YouTube video that would explain much better than I can.
TLDR: 'Free Software' grants the users of the software 4 essential freedoms. Freedom 1 (Run the software how you want to run the software for whatever purpose.) Freedom 2 (Study and modify the source code.) Freedom 3 (Give or sell copies of the software.) Freedom 4 (Give or sell modified copies of the software.) When software doesn't have a license (even if the source code is available) these freedoms are not present therefore, the software is source-available proprietary. I suggested GPL3 because GPL3 is a strong Free Software license.
Regardless of the outcome, I appreciate you taking a look at this issue.
A project does need a license in order for it to be considered 'Free Software.' It may not seem important but I can link you a YouTube video that would explain much better than I can.
TLDR: 'Free Software' grants the users of the software 4 essential freedoms. Freedom 1 (Run the software how you want to run the software for whatever purpose.) Freedom 2 (Study and modify the source code.) Freedom 3 (Give or sell copies of the software.) Freedom 4 (Give or sell modified copies of the software.) When software doesn't have a license (even if the source code is available) these freedoms are not present therefore, the software is source-available proprietary. I suggested GPL3 because GPL3 is a strong Free Software license.
Regardless of the outcome, I appreciate you taking a look at this issue.
Here is the link (if you are interested:) https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ag1AKIl_2GM
Free software, free society: Richard Stallman at TEDxGeneva 2014