Consider public-private licensing. Choose a license that requires sharing back, or limits to noncommercial use, and sell individual exceptions to that rule. https://indieopensource.com/public-private/indies
It allows the public to continue to use your work to collaborate and create better things, which is the point of open source, while allowing businesses (which should be able to afford to license a software product) to still pitch in and generate a profit. Both of these will attract talent and interest and allow collaborators to prosper.
> Many years ago, a friend of mine was asked to rerelease a copylefted program under noncopyleft terms, and he responded more or less like this: > > > "Sometimes I work on free software, and sometimes I work on proprietary software---but when I work on proprietary software, I expect to get paid." > > He was willing to share his work with a community that shares software, but saw no reason to give a handout to a business making products that would be off-limits to our community. His goal was different from mine, but he decided that the GNU GPL was useful for his goal too.
The approach is far more common in other kinds of licensed, creative work. Creative Commons' choice to standardized noncommercial license terms helped make commercial-noncommercial licensing familiar in photography, illustration, music, and so on.
The model has gone by a few names. Those researching should search on "selling exceptions" and "dual licensing", too.
I'm doing what I can to popularize through License Zero (https://licensezero.com).
I understand RMS was at times the beneficiary of people who were sympathetic to his mission. For example, students said at one point he was living in a university office that someone arranged to be allocated to him.
Personal sacrifices like this, towards his principles, were to RMS's credit, but the suggestion that one could just pick up consulting work on the side seemed misleading. RMS was one of the better programmers, and famous, and even he didn't seem to pull off that sustainability reliably.
I did buy a bunch of them on regular basis.
People may use whatever license they wish, but it's important to be clear about what is (and is not) FOSS.
OSI and FSF would disagree.
> We could rewrite any copyleft license as a limit on use.
What is the purpose of your argument? What are you trying to achieve? Do you want a Lobjan specification of FOSS? There may be difficult cases around the edges of the definition of FOSS, but restrictions on commercial use are not one of them.
As for FSF, their process for considering licenses is a black box. We have "What is Free Software?", published largely in response to the creation of the Open Source Initiative. But it's no more a technical specification than OSD is.
I never claimed that restrictions on commercial use are "open" or "free", or that any particular license that does so is "open" or "free". I have and do claim that neither OSI nor FSF provides any clear, complete guidance on what "open" or "free" copyleft can and cannot do. Consensus within the relatively small groups of folks actively engaged with those institutions is founded in good-sounding generalities, not any rigorous definition.
There was enough ambiguity in your statement on public-private licensing that I felt the need to make the clarification. My intention was a much a "public service announcement" as anything.
> I have and do claim that neither OSI nor FSF provides any clear, complete guidance on what "open" or "free" copyleft can and cannot do. Consensus within the relatively small groups of folks actively engaged with those institutions is founded in good-sounding generalities, not any rigorous definition.
A fair contention, though I might disagree. However, that does not change the fact that non-commercial licenses are not FLOSS. Both the OSI and FSF have made that patently clear.
Your initial advice was fine, I just want to make sure that people who follow your advice don't confuse non-commercial source-available licenses with FLOSS.
The term "free software" was effectively coined by RMS & The Free Software Foundation. It is used explicitly when referring to copyleft licenses, which restrict certain uses of the licensed software in order to protect user freedoms. You can argue that other people use the term in other ways, but the most commonly accepted definition is the one used by the FSF.
The term "open source" is somewhat vague. Software that is merely "open source" is not necessarily licensed in a way that allows redistribution/modification. The only thing guaranteed about "open source" software is that you can read the source.
https://writing.kemitchell.com/2018/11/05/OSD-Copyleft-Regul...
https://blog.licensezero.com/2018/09/14/free-to-take-freedom...
There are heaps of disputes about whether licenses qualify. Check OSI's license-review list, or Twitter, or, frankly, HN.
'Open Source' was/is a rebranding of the term 'Free Software' to make it easier to sell to suits. Eric Raymond has said as much about his invention of the phrase. The idea that it's just about "being able to read the source" is wrong. It's not vague at all, you just didn't do your research.
Otherwise, I concur.
You need commercial users who want to use your stuff enough, and the GPL/LGPL/whatever license won't work for them, such that it will get pushed up to someone who'll follow through and negotiate a license.
(You also need it to not quietly be used by parties ignoring the license, like has happened many times with Linux and certain GNU-ish libraries that would be expensive to reimplement.)
The tell is a known, small, approachable target market. Especially when the developer already has positive relationships with important would-be customers.