Yup, that's just badly written.
In this case, the "commercial" part means profit by redistribution, such as selling, renting, etc.

But yes, I do recall TinBrookeTales from my Windows days, I frequently used the tbt Limiter and eKit trigger, for a period of 2 or 3 replies I was also once in contact with the guy behind those plugins.
Sadly, the "not for commercial use" part of his license made his plugins unattractive to me.

I don't remember what other ones there were, but I do remember coming across a few more developers than just him who demanded this in their licenses.

What's the point of it being FREE if u can't use it as u want ! And obviously people won't be able to sell these cause they're free to start with ! --srv Freeware ninja

To the CM thingie: It was indeed not meant to mean that the CM plugins can't be used in commercial productions. I remember a similar thread about SynthmasterCM, and Lee from Compuuter Music said it can be used for commercial productions. What is meant is probably that the plugins are not supposed to be resold and to make money with, like e.g. you sell a DVD with their plugins on.

My views exactly......
rsp

Well that seems to me like dangling the candy in front of a baby, and then snatching it away when it reaches for it, ad infitum.

It would just be spiteful.

And pointless, I'd say.

Yep, seems pretty pointless to me too. Note also that there is not the one reason to release freeware too. Some want to tease ppl to buy the full product, some code as a hobby with no ambitions to be commercial and so on. Actually i think it is pretty stupid to restrict to non-commercial use, as you would keep the artists down in a way. Also what better advertising than the use of software in a professional production is there?

the ghost of entitlement lives on...

if you get it for free and the developer says you can't use it for commercial projects it is very much in his/her right to do so......
if that's against your philosophy then don't use the freeware..

you got it for free, for crying out loud.......
rsp

I don't see anything contradictory in our points. Even when you release a commercial product, you can restrict it to non-commercial use. In the end you get what you pay for. Doesn't mean one can't argue about the reasons the coders have to restrict their software in that way, which IMO is pointless. It isn't pointless to you, so we can argue about it. Not sure though if it is even worth a discussion, because i think 99 % of freeware isn't restricted in that way.

So, why not just use the free plugin to make music that you give away free too? If a plugin isn't commercial, maybe the devs with such licensing terms don't expect the creations made with said plugin to be commercialized either?

True, the developer has the right to deny (for whatever reason) the commercial use of his freeware product and the user has to agree to his conditions if he wants to use that product.
If you don't agree with licensing conditions, then just don't use the tool, it's so simple and there's nothing to be angry about because you didn't lose any money. That's fair in my view.



Anyway I strongly disagree with the - though legit - decision of completely forbidding commercial use. I think it is way better to ask for a small fee in case of commercial use or, even better, to ask people to donate to an ong or to do something good for other people. I think this is the right way to make people recognize a value to things they received for free in first instance.... and encouraging to give back to other people can be also a way to help making the world a better place.


This is just my opinion, anybody has the full right to disagree.

Exactly. That's plain ridiculous. If you want to dictate the way someone will use your software, why put it to the public, in the first place?

Sorry to say people sell other people's freeware all the time, burned onto CD-Rs and DVD-Rs, sold to people who have no idea how they're getting such a great deal -- 850 Incredible Music Programs For Just $18.99! Wow!

in that case I would say they pay the collecting work and process, of course, illegal.

I use a lot of free mixing and effects plugs, there are some great ones out there that equal some of the paid software I have. As someone who writes music commercially I'd be pretty disappointed if I read in the EULA that I couldn't use something useful in a project.

Obviously it's the developers prerogative to do so, but I really can't see the point - unless they want to remain niche to amateur/hobbyist producers... for some reason.

Not all the commercial side of music is some giant soul-crushing behemoth!

@Acrobat: Whether it's legal or illegal depends on each software item's license agreement, but even when legal it's definitely sleazy.