Stepping back, this gets into the bigger questions of "What is commercial use?"
If you take an image that's Creative Commons BY-SA-NC and you use it as the title image in your article and display the photographers name and even link to his or her website/original image, but your site is filled with ads you use to make money off your writing ... have you violated that license?
This is why Wikipedia doesn't allow NC works and why we have the "Open Culture" classifications for licenses types.
I feel like the Common Clause supporters are in this spot where they want to monetize and survive of their software, and I can respect that. But the spirit of the GPLv3 camp of devs is that "Fine, let other people make money off my works if they want. But they need to contribute their improvements back."
I feel like the Commons Clause is kinda a half-and-half approach that really fails on both sides of the camp. Most BSD licensed tools can be used in GPLv3 software, but (and correct me if I'm wrong) it doesn't look like Commons Clause is compatible at all.
It's kinda sad how licensing hinders using the best tools in open source development. An excellent example is Hunspell, which is a god awful spell checker that's used in everything. Aspell if superior in almost every case, and yet it can't be included in anything due to licensing:
> Most BSD licensed tools can be used in GPLv3 software, but (and correct me if I'm wrong) it doesn't look like Commons Clause is compatible at all.
You're correct; all licenses that don't qualify as Free Software are incompatible with the GPL by definition, and the "Commons" Clause is not a Free Software license.
> If you take an image that's Creative Commons BY-SA-NC ... but your site is filled with ads you use to make money off your writing ... have you violated that license?
Other examples: Is the BBC commerical? It's technically a public service broadcaster, owned and "controlled" (ish) by a government. But it has managers and offices and directors (and sorta) CEO, and HR departments and employees and will sell products, and it buys many things, and competes in the same space as many commerical TV stations and producers.
Is the US Department of Defence commerical? No. The US Army? No. What about Deutsche Bahn, the German train company?
Imagine a tiny worker owned co-operative, it's 10 local indiginous farmers who are barely self suffecient, but they made a co-op selling their products. It's a democratic organisation, controlled by it's members. That is definitly commerical.
In my experience BBC asks permission to use anything. I have an open source game (GPL), and they asked me for permission to use a footage of their own gameplay. So, even if this would fall into "fair use", they still asked.
If you take an image that's Creative Commons BY-SA-NC and you use it as the title image in your article and display the photographers name and even link to his or her website/original image, but your site is filled with ads you use to make money off your writing ... have you violated that license?
This is why Wikipedia doesn't allow NC works and why we have the "Open Culture" classifications for licenses types.
I feel like the Common Clause supporters are in this spot where they want to monetize and survive of their software, and I can respect that. But the spirit of the GPLv3 camp of devs is that "Fine, let other people make money off my works if they want. But they need to contribute their improvements back."
I feel like the Commons Clause is kinda a half-and-half approach that really fails on both sides of the camp. Most BSD licensed tools can be used in GPLv3 software, but (and correct me if I'm wrong) it doesn't look like Commons Clause is compatible at all.
It's kinda sad how licensing hinders using the best tools in open source development. An excellent example is Hunspell, which is a god awful spell checker that's used in everything. Aspell if superior in almost every case, and yet it can't be included in anything due to licensing:
https://penguindreams.org/blog/aspell-and-hunspell-a-tale-of...