Software licenses and releasing Python programs for review

[Robert Kern]

Paul Rubin wrote:
> "poisondart" <poisondart985 at gmail.com> writes:

>>Yes, what I ask may seem ridiculous, but I don't view it that way.
>>Instead, I find that it is the implication of using a restrictive
>>license such as I described to be ridiculous: if there is no monetary
>>gain option in the license, then this implies that nobody (or very few)
>>will be willing to do any work or "asking for something for nothing".
>>It isn't for nothing if you value knowledge and learning.
> 
> Well, long experience has shown that in practice, such clauses tend to
> turn away users and developers.

And for thoroughness, allow me to add "even if they have no intention or 
desire to profit monetarily." I can't explain exactly why this is the 
case, but it seems to be true in the overwhelming majority of cases. 
Academic projects with non-commercial clauses languish in obscurity 
while academic Open Source projects thrive. The contributors to the Open 
Source projects value knowledge and learning just as much as the lonely 
developers of the non-commercial-only projects, but for whatever reason, 
they don't contribute to those non-commercial-only projects.

-- 
Robert Kern
rkern at ucsd.edu

"In the fields of hell where the grass grows high
  Are the graves of dreams allowed to die."
   -- Richard Harter