Creative Commons BY-NC is great for some who disagree with you and that’s the beauty of choosing a license. As it’s your work you choose. Superiority doesn’t matter.
You are disallowed from building a commercial product on top of it or tweek/fix it without publishing said changes. There may be systemic reason that prevent that.
Nope. You can build proprietary code on top of it, as long as you don’t distribute it. A company can create all its internal tools with copyleft code, and it would all be kosher. If they start sending that code elsewhere, then the license kicks in.
That still doesn’t prevent a company from having the option to use the code commercially. Whether they actually want to do it or not is a separate issue.
Permissive licensing is strictly superior, in my mind.
Why do you want people to be unable to use this software commercially? Should open source not be ubiquitous instead of limited to hobbyists.
Creative Commons BY-NC is great for some who disagree with you and that’s the beauty of choosing a license. As it’s your work you choose. Superiority doesn’t matter.
Nothing in the GPL prevents software from being used commercially… why do you claim they are unable to?
You are disallowed from building a commercial product on top of it or tweek/fix it without publishing said changes. There may be systemic reason that prevent that.
Nope. You can build proprietary code on top of it, as long as you don’t distribute it. A company can create all its internal tools with copyleft code, and it would all be kosher. If they start sending that code elsewhere, then the license kicks in.
That still doesn’t prevent a company from having the option to use the code commercially. Whether they actually want to do it or not is a separate issue.