Thanks for the very informative post! Really, the licensing I envision would be: 1) Any entity that does/wants to derive commercial value from the software sh

Thanks for the very informative post! Really, the licensing I envision would be: 1) Any entity that does/wants to derive commercial value from the software should compensate the copyright holder. Example entities here are both "I want to sell software that includes/is derived from your software" and "I'm a company/freelancer using your product as part of my business operations". 2) Any other entity can use the software in any way they see fit (like e.g. MIT) except that 1) applies transitively to any derived software. The situation here is less "This is an open source thing where I take all your contributions and profit off it" but more "This is a commercial for-profit thing that would normally be proprietary closed-source, but everyone can copy/inspect/modify the source as long as they do not profit from it". Contributions would either be disallowed, or under a CLA if for some reason someone wants to contribute to it (with the clear expectation that someone else is going to profit from it).