Since it is licensed under GPL-3.0 I can STILL use it commercially but I will be obligated to open-source and contribute any changes back to the project.
The choice of license for this project doesn’t stop it from being used commercially. The author should try a more strict Creative Commons license like: CC-NC 4.0 (Non-Commercial) License or CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (Attribution-Non Commercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International)
You're not even obligated to open-source or contribute changes. You simply must offer source code to anyone you distribute your combined work to.
For instance, if you sold these cameras at Walmart you'd need to provide a URL to source code on the box, or a mailing address where someone can write you a request.
If your company just manufactures and installs these on its own campus, you haven't distributed them, and you needn't contribute your changes.
Comments
GPL-3.0 != Non Commercial
Since it is licensed under GPL-3.0 I can STILL use it commercially but I will be obligated to open-source and contribute any changes back to the project.
The choice of license for this project doesn’t stop it from being used commercially. The author should try a more strict Creative Commons license like: CC-NC 4.0 (Non-Commercial) License or CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (Attribution-Non Commercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International)
You're not even obligated to open-source or contribute changes. You simply must offer source code to anyone you distribute your combined work to.
For instance, if you sold these cameras at Walmart you'd need to provide a URL to source code on the box, or a mailing address where someone can write you a request.
If your company just manufactures and installs these on its own campus, you haven't distributed them, and you needn't contribute your changes.
Non-commercial is so ambiguous that no one knows what is and isn't commercial.