Creative commons licenses have had optional NC (no commercial use) and ND (no derivative works) clauses for years. FOSS purists don't like them, but a lot of ar

Creative commons licenses have had optional NC (no commercial use) and ND (no derivative works) clauses for years. FOSS purists don't like them, but a lot of artists depend on those clauses to make a living. There is no widely recognized equivalent of a CC-BY-NC license for software, partly because neither the FSF nor OSI will recognize such a license. Maybe someone needs to write one nonetheless. And stick it on their software clearly and unambiguously. They obviously think that OSI-approved licenses don't suit their needs. Then don't use them, period. The author is right that "Apache 2.0 + Commons Clause" is potentially misleading. We've seen "GPLv2 + Classpath Exception" before, but that was to give additional permissions, not a restriction. Similarly, most examples of dual-licensing don't add restrictions to either license. Adding a restriction is something new. It's understandable that people find it disingenuous. Just write a new license already and call it Redis Labs Open License (RLOL) or something like that. I'm sure antirez would be rather unhappy if you forked Redis, deleted a bunch of features, and called it Redis Lite. At least have the courtesy of changing the name if you're going to use an incompatible license.