I apologize. The tangible difference is the "noncommercial" part, where if you offer your instance for pay, that would be violating the license. The Open Sour

I apologize. The tangible difference is the "noncommercial" part, where if you offer your instance for pay, that would be violating the license. The Open Source Definition includes this: > The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. (Emphasis added.) People interpret that as meaning that Open Source cannot restrict a business from using it for any purpose, including making money. This also comes from Freedom 0 of the Four Freedoms, where the software may be used "for any purpose." So if I put out a license that only allows noncommercial use, people say (and probably rightly) that it is not an Open Source license. SAMS is different from FOSS because it accepts a noncommercial license under its umbrella when FOSS does not.