Although I see you've already bowed to consensus, Ovid, I'd like to thank you for raising the question. Despite the anonymonk's insistence that you're stupid and foolish to have done so instead of simply following "commen sense"(sic), I find that progress can come only from questioning the status quo.
in reply to Tiny Frameworks
Back on-topic, I do agree with the general consensus that your example is not what I would call an (unqualified) "framework", as I interpret a "framework" as something which tells you how you should create your code and, in the process, necessarily constrains that code. (If you don't comply with its constraints, you can't use whatever services the framework provides.) My::UNIVERSAL does not tell you how to structure your code overall, nor does it lead to any wide-reaching constraints, so I don't believe it qualifies as an application framework, which, as tye pointed out, is what is normally meant when "framework" is used alone.
I could, however, go along with calling it a very-light-weight OO framework, as it does suggest and provide a structure for the OO implementation of code which uses it. The constraints it places are very few and very likely to be well-repaid with increased functionality for decreased effort, so I'd even call it a well-designed OO framework. But it's still a framework for OO only, not a general framework.