5 ms·
So? Sure, using a non-commercial license means you can’t ship with Debian, but that doesn’t mean the project can’t be successful in the eyes of the person who p
by ashtonkem 5y ago
So? Sure, using a non-commercial license means you can’t ship with Debian, but that doesn’t mean the project can’t be successful in the eyes of the person who put all the labor in. Perhaps they value being non-commercial above being included in Debian, and that’s their right to make that decision.
Sure, it might not be useful to you, but you’re not the one putting in the labor in this hypothetical scenario.
- seba_dos1 5y agoSo what? The whole purpose of licensing is to make your software useful for others. Let me just repeat the important part of my comment above: > If that's what your intention is, then go for it. If not, maybe rethink.
- ashtonkem 5y agoThat’s presuming that your definition of “useful” is more correct than the author’s definition, which strikes me as more than a bit odd.
- seba_dos1 5y agoThat does not presume any definition of "useful", it's just a straight fact. It seems like you're trying to read between the lines when there's nothing there.
- ashtonkem 5y agoI’m not trying to “read between the lines”, I’m saying that the author of a piece of software gets to decide what they consider to be the point and success criteria for their work, not you. If they don’t want their work being used commercially and that means you can’t use it, that’s a you problem and not a them problem.
- seba_dos1 5y ago> I’m not trying to “read between the lines”, I’m saying that the author of a piece of software gets to decide what they consider to be the point and success criteria for their work, not you. Which is pretty much what I said as well, read more carefully.