[geocar]

> When talking about permacomputing, for example, I don't know why one wouldn't encourage, in any way possible, commercial viability that would lead to the stated goal.

Because capitalism is what destroys the world. Fucking duh.

There's very little point in spending so much time thinking about C compilers in forth that run on scavenged z80s these days if capitalism is actually viable.

[yellowapple]

> Because capitalism is what destroys the world. Fucking duh.

The issue is that “commercial” includes plenty of not-necessarily-capitalist entities as well, like sole proprietors and cooperatives (sole proprietors being single-member worker cooperatives).

Of course, a society in which worker cooperatives and individual craftspersons are the dominant forms of economic participation is probably (hopefully!) also a society which has done away with intellectual property and the enforcement thereof, rendering software license terms (including non-commercial use clauses) entirely moot.

[geocar]

> The issue is that “commercial” includes plenty of not-necessarily-capitalist entities as well

I see no issue, and believe me, I have the deepest empathies for people who participate in capitalism under duress.

If you could explain why I or anyone else should need to help some people murder so that those "not-necessarily-capitalists" we are so worried about can use my software without legal threat, I would happily listen to it, but I think you will be unconvincing.

I mean, you have realised that someone could just ask, right? I could listen to them, and if they had a reason that I agreed was good, I could give them whatever they needed for themselves without accessorising myself to that murder that others would do with those things.