All points noted Sander - and accepted as being perfectly valid.
As Devil's Advocate
, my next question would be "Should there be an element of 'Royalties' payable back to the PI development team, for any author of a PCL module - after all, their code would be, more or less, 'useless' without the PI backbone?
If so, then how does THAT get policed?
What if a particular module then has enough merit and following to deserve to be included 'within' the Standard Distribution package?
And, as someone who has not yet mastered the art of writing their own PCL code (even though I possibly could), am I then 'discriminated against', financially, because I can only compose in PJSR - an environment that CANNOT be turned 'commercial', simply because there is no way to impose 'control' on the distribution of what is ostensibly 'plain text' scripting?
Please, do NOT misunderstand me here - I am all for the continuing development of 'our world', but not 'by any means' or 'at any cost'. I certainly AM concerned that an alternative revenue stream might 'dilute' the overall concept of PI and I would like to see any such development happen in some way that this dilution does not, or cannot, happen.
Perhaps Plaeides Astrophoto has to have the final say on the commercial viability of any add-on, I don't know. Of course, there is NOTHING that can actually stop - for example - 'you' selling 'me' a copy of your next arithmagical algorithm that works with my copy of PI to solve the insolvable. You make me an offer, I agree, you sell, I buy. Juan need never know. But, have we violated any terms of agreement by 'using' Juan's 'core' code 'commercially', without his permission or agreement?
There is no doubt that this could be a can of worms, even though they may all be small ones, with enough fish and birds round about to make short shrift of them. But, I do think - as you have rightly suggested - that we all need to read the label very carefully before we grab that ring-pull . . . .
Cheers,
