I did say the following above: "Since something in public domain can be resold, and the secondary users of that may never know the source code exists." I am qu

I did say the following above: "Since something in public domain can be resold, and the secondary users of that may never know the source code exists." I am quite aware of that issue. All I was saying any license other than public domain puts some sort restriction/requirement on users. Vendors are users too, and ideally they would not try close off open source code. So a good OSS license should unobtrusive, and reasonable to users who are not trying engage in shenanigans. These are obviously restrictions since the license tries to prevent underhanded behavior, but I woulds say a reasonable compromises since we don't live in a perfect world where everyone is honest. Despite it's confusing name I would say this "commons license" was attempt to stop what they see has underhanded behavior. However, as I said before it's a comprise too large since really does have the potential limit a lot of freedoms. I would say it's anything but unobtrusive. However, the OP author of the article also appears dismissive or closed to any criticism.