> Finally the idea that all software even can be free "as in beer" is a fantasy, especially when you go beyond bare bones open source code that requires a lot o

> Finally the idea that all software even can be free "as in beer" is a fantasy, especially when you go beyond bare bones open source code that requires a lot of expert setup or "geek tools." You don't see any irony at all in saying this as an argument against calling Non-Commercial licenses Non-Free? This is the content that by law can't be used to fund anything, at all, including freedom-preserving software. Ironically, the best legal chance you have at getting away with funding a product that includes Non-Commercial licensed content is probably ads/donations, which you seem to dislike. > If all software is free "as in beer," it becomes impossible to field any business model that prioritizes the user So how exactly are licenses that literally require you to make everything built on top of them free (as in beer) helping with this? If you don't believe that free (as in beer) software/content is worthwhile or feasible to make in the long term, than these Non-Commercial licenses aren't contributing anything worthwhile to the commons, because they can't be used to fund anything. Anything built on top of them will always be the kind of low-effort unsustainable software that you decry here. If what you're saying is true, then producers of Non-Commercial licensed content might as well just license that stuff as straight proprietary in the first place and stop pretending to be occupying a middle ground.