That's exactly an n-th example of why this non-commercial clause is bogus since the very beginning of CC, and particularly unadapted for software code: no one is able to define clearly what commercial means, and what perimeter it applies to.
Selling the code? (you're a software editor) You could say it's covered/forbidden by the license.
Selling the service the code gives when it is running? (you're a PaaS) You could say too.
Selling anything unrelated to the code and the running app (say, oranges), but using the app to organise privately within a corporation? (you could be a shop owner installing the software for yourself and your team within your own building) 1/ the license says nothing about it, 2/ if it were covered and forbidden, how would it be even enforceable?
> That's exactly an n-th example of why this non-commercial clause is bogus since the very beginning of CC, and particularly unadapted for software code: no one is able to define clearly what commercial means, and what perimeter it applies to.
Agree with you on this one and I'd go step further: CC licences in general are poor fit for software.
> Selling anything unrelated to the code and the running app (say, oranges), but using the app to organise privately within a corporation? (you could be a shop owner installing the software for yourself and your team within your own building)
Excerpt (that I think is most relevant, but it's definitely a nuanced issue):
> uses by for-profit companies are typically considered more commercial [...] one exception to this pattern is in relation to uses by individuals that are personal or private in nature
Based on this, I think the common agreement would be that this is commercial use.
> how would it be even enforceable?
That's not a point for ignoring the license. If you download pirated movies, games, or other software, it's very unlikely you'll get caught, but you're still committing a crime.
However in this case, it actually can be enforcable. If the organization is eg. a startup that raises venture funding or is getting acquired, legal due dilligence will involve examination of all licences for software used.
That's not what I understand from these pages (that only reinforces that even to CC, NonCommercial is not a clear criteria).
They also note NonCommercial as “not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation.” which perfectly matches my 3rd case above.
For instance, you perfectly can print and display an NC image as a poster in your professional office, it's not "commercial".
> That's not a point for ignoring the license.
It's definitely an argument to ignore this part of the license: an unenforceable item is effectively void.
> If you download pirated movies, games, or other software, it's very unlikely you'll get caught, but you're still committing a crime.
Beware, that's different here. Downloading/uploading pirated items is illegal. Here, the NonCommercial clause is so ambiguous that even CC doesn't know how to put it. So its enforcement is even further delicate and open to interpretation.
Planning work is not the work, it's something around the work, similar to a poster (that could very well present information valuable to the work, but still not be the work you're selling in the end).
That's exactly an n-th example of why this non-commercial clause is bogus since the very beginning of CC, and particularly unadapted for software code: no one is able to define clearly what commercial means, and what perimeter it applies to.
Selling the code? (you're a software editor) You could say it's covered/forbidden by the license.
Selling the service the code gives when it is running? (you're a PaaS) You could say too.
Selling anything unrelated to the code and the running app (say, oranges), but using the app to organise privately within a corporation? (you could be a shop owner installing the software for yourself and your team within your own building) 1/ the license says nothing about it, 2/ if it were covered and forbidden, how would it be even enforceable?