I get that the author wants a portion of whatever money you make with his scripts, but I wonder if they are aware of the ambiguity in "noncommercial" licenses. I feel like this precludes the use of these scripts anywhere but hobbyist projects that you never intend to profit from. And I think that's sad because the author could be probably make more of a name for themselves by using a more permissive license like the GPL.
I've seen these before but I've always stayed away because the costs for commercial licensing aren't spelled out or even estimated at all. I just never liked to anticipate the friction involved if I were to incorporate these into a project that would become a commercial endeavor.
I tend to agree that people who write software should -- where possible -- licence it so that people using it for commercial purposes either need to release the source code (GPL) or in terms similar to Fred's ImageMagick scripts.<p>The reason for this is that there is a very active competition between OSS (open source software) and non-free software and if OSS can access libraries which non-free software cannot, it gives OSS a very much needed advantage.<p>That being said, these scripts look incredible! We shouldn't focus so much on the licence but rather in the incredible effort the author has put in, and the knowledge he displays (I think it's pretty impressive!)
I see that the license prohibits rewriting or copying the scripts into other software. Is there a GUI image editor that works by running modular CL scripts (such as these) on an image in a simple UX window? I imagine that would not be against this license.