This is something I have to reflect upon.
I'm under the impression that commercial exploitation destroys anything good that comes from hacking.
At times, I'd like a license stricter then AGPL for my code, just to protect it from "the market".
And I refuse to accept that being commercial is the only way to be useful to people. That's the ethics of Capitalism, and I don't like it.
@Shamar @kaniini @starbreaker @rysiek I'm skeptical of and concerned about commercial exploitation too. Problem is, "noncommercial" doesn't fix the things you'll expect it to, and will prevent things you want.
Here's a question: if Linux were noncommercial, should a community run nonprofit be legally allowed to run it in a commercially run hosting service / datacenter? Even if the hosting service profits from it? Can the cooperative collect dues?
Guys so what if I want something I do (code in my case) be and remain in any of its evolution a gift?
Is there anything wrong with it?
No license exists to allow this?
I know that my current license of choice (GPL and AGPL) allow this under certain conditions. And I find it annoying.
I would also agree to private myself from the opportunity to remove the gift, I just want it to remain a gift in any of its evolutions.
I don't think we'll ever see a license that keeps a work free and freedom-respecting in every possible scenario, for every person on Earth, until the end of human time. That's too tall of an order.
Remember, license enforcement is the flip side of the coin here... and it's difficult or discouraged, usually. There are very heated battles over FOSS enforcement strategy right now.
If I don't think eternal copyright is a good idea for creative works, why should it be appropriate for software?
Admittedly I'm not sure we're going to see a penguin books reissue of the first fortran compiler, but still, it should be released to the public domain.
And most of the time that's entirely enough, because derivative works become licensed anew. The original's copyright might expire, but the derivative work is still under copyright -- and that's usually where the interesting stuff is happening and what people would like to use (or lock down).
I do not WANT to give away my copyright, but I could accept to, if I was sure that the code would not be turned into a private profit.
However, accepting contributions under the same license only limit me and everybody else to that license, which might not be strict enough to prevent future explitations.
Notice there is nothing about "noncommercial" in the GPL.
That's my point, NC is not necessary to achieve what people think it's needed for. And it's counter-productive and problematic in general.
I've always read it this way too.
But recently I started to think that Stallman, as smart as he is, is still grown in a capitalist culture and subconsciously absorbed many of this culture's assumptions/requirements.
My recent answer to the "why block good uses related to money" is: because they have proved to break the good qualities of the software itself, in the long run.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!