It would be closer to "source available". See eg tarsnap. > Is prohibiting commercialisation of my work not in the spirit of open source? Roughly (IMNHO) ther

It would be closer to "source available". See eg tarsnap. > Is prohibiting commercialisation of my work not in the spirit of open source? Roughly (IMNHO) there's Stallman/gnu style Free software, which is about user freedoms (freedom to run the software being freedom zero). And the Raymond/cathedral vs bazaar "open source", which is about developer freedom - the freedom to learn from and build (in also a business sense) on other software (mit/bsd/apache etc). The distinction isn't absolute, a gnu "user" is certainly a developer too - but "open source" isn't as concerned with user freedom - especially freedom zero. With drm, signed bootloaders and trusted computing - it's easy to see a world where even access to source code and compiler tool chain doesn't guarantee the freedom to run a) binary software from a vendor, nor b) software binaries you make yourself. So gnu/free software isn't primarily about preventing commercialization (see eg: walnut creek software and their CD rom/floppy shipping business) - it's about maintaining user freedom. And many believe the only real way to legally protect end user freedoms is through means like gpl/AGPL. In a sense gnu is pessimistic free software (what if I can't (legally) access a c compiler and kernel header files - how can I even build a new printer driver then?) - open source is more libertarian/free market optimistic: go ahead build a firewall appliance from this distribution and lock your customers out - there's plenty other folk that will keep sharing and caring. And if you develop a cool, high performance userspace network stack we'd love for you to share - but do as you please) Neither is about preventing commercialization - both are about securing access and openness. Now, they do work against certain types of legal mechanisms that are associated with commercialization, like patents and copyright. Lastly,in a world with copyright, "source available" can be very dangerous to developers (this include text books with unclear licenses for code examples). What happens when I copy your btree implementation? You did show it to me. Was I supposed to forget about it?).