Are you talking about software _you_ wrote yourself, in which case you would apply the restriction to your users and not yourself as the copyright holder? I'm talking about software other people wrote where I have no need to resell it.
-
-
"Commercial use" doesn't (just) mean reselling. "No commercial use" means I cannot use the software for the purposes of making money. E.g. I can't use it to work on a project for a client, or to work on my own software that I intend to sell by itself.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
E.g. if Linux were "non-commercial" only, I literally would have to use another OS for all work purposes, and could not take work e-mails or server notifications on my Android phone.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @BahamutLagoon25 @byuu_san and
Of course they have that right. I just don't get complaining that it gets put in the "non-free" repo. That repo name obviously refers to freedom, not price. Non-gratis code doesn't go in public repositories at all.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @BahamutLagoon25 @byuu_san and
I mean I replied to the non-free repo story. I have nothing against software with more restrictive licenses, other than some aversion to using them personally since I prefer not having to worry about freedom 0. I have to be more careful, since I need to actually read the EULA.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
(yes, not respecting freedom 0 is what, in most usages, distinguishes a license "end-users" have to care about vs one they don't, hence EULA)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.