20
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2026
20 points (100.0% liked)
TechTakes
2644 readers
78 users here now
Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.
This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.
For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
this is confusing, how many licenses that are "NonCommercial" are mainstream Free/Open source? From what I've seen they're deffo a minority anyway.
Copyleft is non-commercial haven't you heard? I mean its really unfair, the code is completely free but you are not allowed to create the torment nexus without everybody seeing your work.
I can think of one notable project I ever saw one, and that's Bookwyrm with the Anti-Capitalist Software License v1.4.
But this seems too vague-posty to refer to something that specific. Prolly just someone butthurt over copyleft.
There are licenses that effectively repel corporate use without a non-commercial clause; I looked at them on Open Source SE a while ago, including a fun bit of dentistry previously, on Lobsters. GPLv3 and AGPLv3 are examples in common usage. This might help to illuminate our boy's actual problem: he can't use Free Software without complying with the onerous requirement of ensuring the Four Freedoms by not plagiarizing, and he really wants to plagiarize.
Right? Like he never heard of MIT or Apache2 licence.
You could argue that for example AGPL3 is non-commercial in practice due to the requirements to disclose code. But even then.