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...
