> I can’t dispel your interpretation that my writing is “confused” but I can assure you that a lot of thought went into the license. That doesn't contradict wh

> I can’t dispel your interpretation that my writing is “confused” but I can assure you that a lot of thought went into the license. That doesn't contradict what I wrote. The thought shows. What it doesn't show is understanding or (and I don't mean this aggressively, but I'm worried it will read as such) competence. To give an analogy, if a lawyer came learned programming and wrote a very clever piece of code, but without any of the experience or background that develops from having been a software engineer or formally trained, you might get something interesting, but probably not necessarily helpful. There's a body of things which people in the field know from decades of collective experience which they would be missing. When there's a post like mine, there are two possibilities: 1) You're missing something 2) I'm missing something I would at least be open-minded to the former, since that would have implications which could adversely impact your business. To be crystal clear: I don't think the license is bad, stupid, or unreasonable (your previous one, in contrast, was). I would never do business with BUSL. I would with FSL. It's a reasonable scheme. However, the connecting logic and analysis between the license and business strategy is missing, confused, or incorrect. It's also incorrect about the implications of GPL/AGPL and dual-license models. Without that logic, you will misuse it. You won't be able to leverage the advantages of open-source, and you might be blindsided by the downside. You're trying to do something novel. In business, I tend to think about things which are: - Competitive advantages. There, I'm trying to do something better, novel, and develop unique expertise. - Everything else. There, I follow best practices, outsource, and otherwise don't invest. You're very much doing something novel outside an area of your (personal) area of expertise. My advise would be to either: (1) Go with best practices (2) Develop expertise. For the latter, my advice would be to talk to someone like myself, Eben Moglen, or otherwise, until you can articulate their arguments, how they think about licenses, understand why that's reasonable, and articulate their arguments to others (not cynical versions of them) to the point where someone like myself believes you understand them. At that point, you're ready to innovate from there to gain business advantage. Before that, you're not; innovation is likely to lead to market disadvantage. It may also be that people within your business have that background (I don't know how your positioned). Perhaps Heather and Chad know something you don't. In that case, it's incumbent for you (and others inside) to pick it up, so you can leverage it in day-to-day decisions and outwards communications. Consider me as a potential customer. If I read a blog post like yours, it will reduce your odds of a sale, since it raised red flags about your competence in my head. If nothing else, if you understand that perspective, you can avoid raising red flags (even if I'm the one missing something; others will be missing the same thing too). It's good business to dispel the notion your writing is confused, since sales is all about winning hearts and minds.