[antt]

>It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

I'd say I'm surprised that some people are attacking your license, which overall forces providers to increase user freedom, but I remember the 90s and 00s when the GPL/AGPL was being attacked as a non-free (as in freedom) license - "How can it respect freedom when it FORCES me to release my source code?"

The same people today go on about how great the CC licenses are when they have the NC-SA, which I've been using for my artistic projects since it came out.

Do you have a Stallman like wall of text about defending users freedoms? Because there are enough people who would read it and understand what you're doing once they get past the FUD of "It's proprietary!!!".

[FireBeyond]

Because such things are "necessary" when it provides benefit: access to software/CC stock photography/imagery/fonts.

And less so when it impinges on the ability to make profit from it (leaving aside the argument about "no-one says you can't make money from open source software" - of course you can, but the business model is a little less... convenient... so they fault the license, not anything else).