[paulryanrogers]

> The Curl author made the choice to give away his project for free, no one owes him money.

Technically true, yet in some cases I'm reminded of folks playing music for tips in public. No one enjoying the music owes the musician, though some of them could record / stream it (perhaps supplemented with commentary) for a profit. Would it be ethical for them to contribute nothing or only pennies?

[jonas21]

If the musician puts up a sign that says "Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this performance for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted", then yes, it would be ethical to record/stream it for profit - they've explicitly told you it's okay. Substituting "software" for "performance", that's what the curl license says.

https://curl.se/docs/copyright.html

[scarface74]

Stream it for a “profit” of $0.06 per stream?

[PopAlongKid]

>Stream it for a “profit” of $0.06 per stream?

You're missing a zero there, it's more like $0.006 per stream

https://edm.com/industry/how-much-each-streaming-platform-pa...

[dhagz]

Ah yes, because /that's/ the important part of the argument.

[scarface74]

> No one enjoying the music owes the musician, though some of them could record / stream it (perhaps supplemented with commentary) for a profit. Would it be ethical for them to contribute nothing or only pennies?

According to the sibling reply, if I gave the musician a penny, that would still be 167x more than he would get if I streamed his music.