> You seem to point out the restrictive license (for non-commercial research purposes only) as if it's a negative, Two word statement of fact: "Restrictive lic

> You seem to point out the restrictive license (for non-commercial research purposes only) as if it's a negative, Two word statement of fact: "Restrictive license." From those two words, you create a straw man. I have said before, here on HN and other places, that people should choose a license the way they choose a screwdriver, not the way they choose a religion. The license must fit the project goal. I point out the restrictive license in part because it is not one of the usual licenses that often accompanies source releases. A noteworthy oddity. An oddity that will cost money to understand, if need be. I point out the restrictive license in part to make people aware that they need to investigate before deciding to invest a lot of time evaluating this package. Simply a courtesy. As you point out, the license may or may not be a problem depending on the use case. I know of several entities that might be interested in taking a commercial license. I know of several entities that would have already stopped reading because the license does not fit their agenda.