[atsmyles]

This is true. Period. Controlling the use of software is always not free. If I made a project with a license that said that anyone can use the software except for those who control the use of their software, I wouldn't be able to use my own software. As far as the developer goes, you can license your code however you like. But don't claim the moral high ground. These non commercial licenses are no different than proprietary software.

[api]

By that argument the GPL is not free because it prevents me from (legally) stripping all the copyrights off and incorporating all the code into a commercial product.

[adl]

That's not limiting use, it's limiting distribution, different things.

[DangitBobby]

Assuming, of course, that use and distribution are entirely independent which is dubious at best. Regardless, controlling distribution still makes it not free.

[atsmyles]

No, you just don't understand the argument. Copyright is not a EULA.

[Thiez]

> If I made a project with a license that said that anyone can use the software except for those who control the use of their software, I wouldn't be able to use my own software.

That scenario is clearly wrong and absurd. You don't need a license to use your own intellectual property, and thus cannot be bound by that license in any way.