[win66]

I'm discriminating based on money. Like the selling of any product if someone can provide the money otherwise not. Otherwise that would be theft or IP violation or whatever it is.

But I guess you don't object to purchase so much as to what you see as my misuse of a term, which you feel is very important to get right. I get that. I understand that many people feel legitimately upset when they see the word used in a way that differs vastly from their beliefs about it.

I acknowledge those complaints you have, they're valid. I don't question your views, I just work from the point of view that it's a big world out there, plenty of room for different perspectives and experiences...and plenty of people with their own interpretation of a term. And there's plenty of room for different versions of a term. I don't think you or, or anyone has monopoly on the meaning of a word or whatever. We can all make our own meanings. No problem I see with that.

I understand you seem to differ on this and believe it's very important to get the word to align with what you see as correct usage. And you view my use of it which diverges from that...as a deliberate bait and switch to lure people in on the false promise of an open source while I rip the rug out from under their innocent feat and charge them or deny them usage. I could say your interpretation is ungracious or ungenerous, but I don't need to. I see it as valid, from your point of view. I get you totally see it as the right way, and I'm fine with that. We see it differently and that's OK.

So, ignoring the intricacies of usage because debating the fine points of terminology, of a particular usage...is not something I'm into here...maybe I can share some of the reason why I chose this, keeping in mind that I understand the license language is unpolished, and I think of it as a work in progress.

I think if you're trying to make money, then you should pay. But if you're in government, you're already funded by people's taxes, so why should we tax people twice? Government may as well not have to pay a license, but they should pay me for my time if I help them deploy it and they should respect my IP by not paying someone else to provide support or service with it. Then I did what I feel is also correct and extended that "free use" exemption to other areas which I feel are widely thought of as having a "public good". Such as not-for-profits (although I'm sure not all of them are good, but again they basically live on donations), and also journalists.

A bit of this is marketing and a bit of it is trying to extract value from what I've created. Maybe it's hamfisted...maybe it won't help me achieve my goal of value capture, and maybe no matter what I say you will despise my stance because you can't help but see my use of the term as an abuse of a sacred ideal meant for the betterment of mankind. I'm not really mocking you...I'm saying I appreciate your idealism, and I'm just trying to make money from what I built.

But if you an indulge me to speak to your idealism for a second, I think any idealism ought to include the openness, and innocence that helps give rise to it, otherwise it might become inflexible fundamentalism, causing more harm than good. I'm not saying you're causing harm here (except maybe to your health by getting upset)...just trying to express my view that there's plenty of ways to view a term, and they're all OK.

You might desire that I put some sort of disclaimer, along the lines of "Adherents of Open Source definition of Q: please note this is Open Source based on the definition of Y, but not per the definition in X, but it is called so because ...."

But I'm not bothered to do that. I feel that such subjectivity is implicit in communication, and doesn't need to be made explicit unless one assumes there is A Single Source of Correctness on the Meanings of Words, published by the Ministry of Truth, 2020 edition. Again, I'm not saying you think of things so inflexibly...I suppose I'm just exaggerating to make my point another way, people have different meanings and perspectives and that's OK.

At the end of the day, people need to consult the License in order to determine the terms of use. And really, if they have questions, they can ask.

Like I said, maybe this is hamfisted...and perhaps I'd make more money if I slapped an MIT license on it and upsold something else...who knows? I'm just learning. Please don't try to crucify me or what I made at the altar of your oh-so-inflexible-but-undoubtedly-correct-to-you beliefs.

If you stop and think about it, you might find there's a way you can use this without getting very upset...that is, if you really want. I guess you could have just been arguing for the sake of it, without any skin involved, but I choose to believe you really do see this product as useful. So if you want to discuss terms (and are not in the free use exemption) definitely reach out to me at [e-mail]

I avoided replying to your comments (or the thread you started) in the main thrust of the Show peak because I saw them as overly negative and I didn't want to ruin my day by involving myself in some fight. But now the peak is over, I feel it's OK to make my view known, and maybe we can find some useful common ground. If not that's OK, and I totally understand if you simply find this infuriating and thank you for reading this far. Either way best of luck and have a great one