@clarfonthey yeah I don't really care about that at all, the annoying thing here is license incompatibility
@eloy I mean, sure, this is a real problem but like
license compatibility only applies if you yourself are trying to reincorporate something. this isn't a library but an app, essentially the end of the software chain
even if you wanted to reuse the code from the app and sell it you could, and just have to change the graphics
@clarfonthey @eloy (cc by-sa is indeed considered a free license: <https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/cc-by-4-0-and-cc-by-sa-4-0-added-to-our-list-of-free-licenses>)
the major problem with cc noncommercial licenses is that they preclude things like, for example, streaming using the application, making videos about the application, and other genuinely useful creative endeavours that you WANT people to be paid for aside from just literally repackaging the same exact product and turning a profit on it. of course, it can be argued (in the united states) that some of these uses are fair use, but it’s a lot more legally murky than a cc by-sa which allows any use so long as you ShareAlike
that's not to say by-nc-sa is Always Bad, but that it is definitely a compromise and you should carefully evaluate whether the good commercial uses you are forbidding are worthwhile collateral damage for the bad commercial uses you are trying to prevent
@clarfonthey @eloy once people realized “oh, people can’t blog about this and run ads on their blog without violating cc nc”, a lot of people shifted away from using it (for non-software products), and by-sa effectively requires that any commercial product to also be freely distributable, so