>> Personally, I think the way forward is source available. I'm not sure that's the best solution either. One thing I think is often overlooked is license comp

>> Personally, I think the way forward is source available. I'm not sure that's the best solution either. One thing I think is often overlooked is license compatibility. Open source benefits a LOT at time when code can be taken directly from one project and used in another. In fewer cases it also benefits from the ability to fork a project. In my opinion we should stick to a tiny number of licenses depending on which makes sense for a project: MIT, GPL, and LGPL. Now I realize there is a lot of BSD out there which seems equivalent to MIT. And as everything is moving to the cloud I can actually see AGPL as a good thing, but even that IMHO should have been merged to GPL3 to prevent license proliferation. In the same sense I think the OSI made things worse by "approving" more licenses that are technically open source but just fragment things. Similar for the Apache licenses. So no, we don't really want to solve these problems with another license. OTOH if your product is stand alone and not likely to have code useful outside itself then it might be OK. But then you're just inviting outsiders to contribute to your commercial product while also offering a limited use free version. I'm going to guess you don't get a lot of contributions?