> But there simply has to be control and restrictions over the use of software for it to be commercially viable (in almost every case).
True. But not all software has to be commercially viable, arguably the most useful/critical and yet valuable isn't - currently my list is Linux, git, Postgres, Python, dozens of Python libs (perhaps thousands, if I go down the dependency trees).
Declaring my biases: I'm partial to GPL licenses and believe providing value to users is more important than making life easier/profitable to developers. IMO, the difference between GPL-style and BSD-style licenses is not being "restrictive" or not, but who gets restrictions (end users and developers being on opposing ends).
While I agree with you that these are non-commercial, by now many of them have very big commercial backings. Many Postgres core contributors work at Microsoft, AWS, etc. who make billions of dollars selling Postgres-as-a-Service today.
Those projects aren't inherently commercial, and great software can be built by passionate hobbyists, but often times the two go hand-in-hand
True. But not all software has to be commercially viable, arguably the most useful/critical and yet valuable isn't - currently my list is Linux, git, Postgres, Python, dozens of Python libs (perhaps thousands, if I go down the dependency trees).
Declaring my biases: I'm partial to GPL licenses and believe providing value to users is more important than making life easier/profitable to developers. IMO, the difference between GPL-style and BSD-style licenses is not being "restrictive" or not, but who gets restrictions (end users and developers being on opposing ends).