> Of these, the laughably named commons clause is the worst offender (it is plainly designed to be confused with the purely virtuous creative commons) Creative

> Of these, the laughably named commons clause is the worst offender (it is plainly designed to be confused with the purely virtuous creative commons) Creative Commons has a "NonCommercial" variant[0], which is much more restrictive than the Commons Clause. To suggest the commons clause is piggybacking off the goodwill of the name of a more restrictive license is silly. > they are almost certainly asserting rights that the copyright holder doesn’t in fact have The author doesn't seem to understand how copyright works.