Is This True ?
-
Many times “No Commercial Use” license are articles where no much information is found and the author put a lot effort in article creation, for somebody comes and make profit of it, in this case a “No Commercial Use” is enforcing you to learn how it is done and do it in your own way. If you think is easier to create your own project/technique from scratch without seeing the work from another people then it is good for you. In may case those articles save a lot of time because they teach me how to do it and I do it for my own. "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." You always have the option in skip the reading of those articles.
-- If you think the chess rules are not fair, first beat Anand, Kasparov and Karpov then you can change them. Moral is, don't question the work of others if you don't know the reason why they did it.
CastorTiu wrote:
If you think is easier to create your own project/technique from scratch without seeing the work from another people then it is good for you.
You missed my point: it's not about being easier, it's about avoiding the situation where, a year from now, I have to remember that a little utility I've been using at home is based on a library with a "no commercial use" license, and so I can't bring it to work. It's about not having to segregate my toolset into the tools i can use when I'm working and those I can't. Let me try to put this another way: for a while, there was a pretty good library for making nice toolbars floating around. The author put a lot of effort into it, and made it really slick. Now, he dual-licensed it: you could use the non-commercial license, or you could pay to use the commercial one. Meanwhile, I wrote a little utility for manipulating images, initially for my own use. It needed toolbars. I wrote my own toolbar code. Why did I not use the very nice toolbar library that was already written? Because then, if I'd ever brought my little utility to work with me (as I am in the habit of doing with software i find useful), I would have been in violation of the license terms. Why didn't I just pay for the library? Because then I wouldn't have been free to share my code without separating it from the commercial-licensed code. Also, while the author charged a fair price for the library, it was far more than what it was worth to me for such a small project. In short, the non-commercial license was of no more use to me the commercial license.
---- I just want you to be happy; That's my only little wish...