There's one thing I'm curious of from the perspective of a lawyer, which is the part I didn't describe clearly. If someone were to post some piece of software o

There's one thing I'm curious of from the perspective of a lawyer, which is the part I didn't describe clearly. If someone were to post some piece of software online with a description saying, "go ahead and use it for anything you want" but then also include a LICENSE.txt that says it's only licensed for non-commercial use, would that original statement of "anything you want" make it harder to sue a commercial user? In this case, Bukkit and CraftBukkit are effectively the same project. Bukkit is the collection of plugins, CraftBukkit is the essentially the abstraction layer to allow those mods to run in the memory space of the Minecraft server. Regardless of what FSF thinks is a derivative work, and really regardless of what really is a derivative work under the law, everyone contributing to Bukkit seemed to be acting as if they thought plugins in the same memory space communicating over APIs was a perfectly legitimate use of their code, at least until this squabble.