syllog1sm
Missing license
I just noticed that there still isn't a license listed with your code, which really prevents a lot of people from using it.
Also, you list some conflicting goals (FOSS, but no commercial use). There's a great Quora answer on the topic of how you could make it free-for-some, but that would inherently not be open source.
If you want to go for something truly open source, but can't pick a license, choosealicense.com will help you out.
Yeah, this aspect of it is a mess at the moment.
I'm in the process of figuring out how to commercialise my work. I decided that the gulf between what's going on in academia and what's available for small companies was a big problem for the field, and that I could fund my work by addressing it.
My goal is to have software that's suitable for research use, source code published, small license fee for commercial use. I'm getting legal advice about how to specify this properly, but in the meantime, the advice has been to not make any commitments. Hence, no license file attached. Yet.
I do want to guarantee that the existing versions of the code will stay suitable for academic research, i.e. if you use my code in your experiments, that version will be available for a future researcher to replicate your results.
I completely support people trying to make money off their code—after all, you've got to make a living somehow—but you should note that you're going to be competing against free stuff like zpar and its recently released Python wrapper.
Yeah, I know. But I've watched researchers struggle to get their tools in the hands of commercial users for a while now. It's hard to provide the level of support and additional utility that people really need, when doing that is contributing almost nothing to how you're being judged against your peers.