On the other hand, I understand when your work hard on something and give it away just to find that someone decided it is easy money and is selling your work for their own benefit.webfork wrote: ↑Thu Nov 05, 2020 11:44 am To be clear, I haven't checked wither this project has a standard license for non-commercial use, but software licenses are an exceedingly complex topic and people do themselves no favors when they make something open but with caveats.
One of the frequent complaints by the Free Software Foundation used to be (I have no idea if this is still the case) that "open source" is needlessly vague. Is it all the source or some of the source? Can I use it for anything? Do a I need a secret decoder ring to figure out what the developer was thinking? Also, the sharp edge of the DMCA wasn't that someone published how the internals of something worked, but whether or not you used it to undermine their (usually poorly implemented DRM) protection scheme.
Projects with standard licenses have (in my experience) remarkable staying power. They may not be the best or the fastest tool, but they tend to also follow other standards as well, while being reliable and transparent.
On custom licenses, as long as it is very clear (and concise) about what limitations they have, I personally don't mind.
What gets me is being vague about such limitations. "Not for commercial use" gives me a headache because there are a lot of unique cases and interpretations.
