Based on Vaughn Vernon 's definition, "DDD-Lite is a means of picking and choosing a subset of the DDD tactical patterns, but without giving full attention to discovering, capturing, and enhancing the Ubiquitous Language." most of the DDD-like approaches are not really DDD! If you don’t have bounded contexts so Ubiquitous language(UL) doesn't mean anything and if you have no UL, you won't have business rules.
In DDD, you should concentrate on a domain model and establish a ubiquitous language and use the patterns of DDD. But most of the cases your application is not complex and big enough to apply the whole DDD approach. but for more and different reasons you are going to use DDD patterns. For example when your application doesn't have any complex and different scenarios to separate them as bounded contexts or SubDomains - and you just embrace technical tools, concepts and patterns of DDD like simple entities, services, repositories, aggregates. In these cases, you can use patterns of DDD within your code and call it "DDD-lite".
I started a project about 10 days ago, it's so interesting that I just read about DDD-lite yesterday; but when I designed the architecture of the project, as I'm really interested in DDD I assigned entities as Aggregate and used the repository and layerSupertype patterns, Repository and Service layers. But I don't have any bounded context, value object, subdomain, UL, Domain Service or context map in this project. I've approximately finished the project, I'm gonna to describe the architecture of the project in a few days after hosting in this tag of my blog with "statos" title.
As a usual it's my pleasure you to correct my mistakes, thanks