> "Something like "public source", i.e. source available but not free to use under any condition may be an answer in some cases." A term for this exists alread

> "Something like "public source", i.e. source available but not free to use under any condition may be an answer in some cases." A term for this exists already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software > "For instance, an independent developer writing an important library should get a share of the business use/revenue" No matter how much people try to avoid saying it, this is simply a proprietary license, albeit one that happens to provide source. All the downsides of a proprietary license are there: the user having to pay for it, having to legally evaluate and accept the terms of the license, and having to monitor for license compliance. Beyond that, the author themselves have to build an organization around accepting payments (internationally even), handling taxes on revenue, undertaking legal action against violators, and be bound by legal requirements, such as fitness for merchantability and export restrictions. None of these things can be avoided so they are now playing a game that the proprietary software vendors are literally structured around winning.