My opinion has always been that restrictions on commercial usage is not "open source" for the simple reason that "commercial" is so hard to define. I always sig

My opinion has always been that restrictions on commercial usage is not "open source" for the simple reason that "commercial" is so hard to define. I always sigh when I see the Creative Commons "NonCommercial" license, I understand where the concern comes from, but in my mind you either embrace the fact that you're releasing something, or you simply don't. This description of the commons clause really irks me: > if you just change the software name or few parts in the code, then you are not allowed to commercially use it without contacting the authors. However, if you modify it to a larger extent, then you are allowed to commercially use it without contacting the original developers. Relative terms like "larger extent" scares away lawyers, and even anyone remotely used to legalese. You don't want more uncertainties and subjective classification than necessary when you're talking about something this important. What then happens is: many of the projects are not picked up by competitors or corporations, they're not improved, and they die out, just like a completely closed source, proprietary project would have. Open source is a way to boost the collaboration and success chance of your project. I think you either go with it, or you don't. I don't see that this solves any problems in such a way that it's worth it.