[throw88888]

> I may be misinterpreting here, so please do correct me

I meant to say that being open source doesn’t automatically mean you can use the software commercially, hence the need for a liberal (enough) license (to permit you this option).

No ideology intended so to say :)

> Does the permissiveness of the license matter more than the utility of the tool?

No of course not. A useless, but free tool is still useless. Likewise I’d argue that a useful open source tool you can’t use commercially is equally useless to many.

> However, a lot of FOSS options would be much better off if consumers did contribute to the project

I agree with you here

[mroche]

Thanks for clarifying, that's what I assumed you meant. I've just seen enough people get antsy or vocally against free software using a copyleft license instead of a permissive one* it makes me second guess some phrasings.

> being open source doesn’t automatically mean you can use the software commercially

I acknowledge there is a split in recognizing "open source" as between (a) a broad term of source code read-ability or (b) attributed to the specification defined by the Open Source Initiative. I see both arguments, but I believe using the OSI definition can eliminate some of these uncertainties.

* Despite the fact it's an end-user tool/application they will not be exposing, modifying, or extending in any way.