I don't think folks should rush to infer stuff from this. There's a kind of dogma about open licenses which often undermines the very efforts proponents say it

I don't think folks should rush to infer stuff from this. There's a kind of dogma about open licenses which often undermines the very efforts proponents say it supports. Another way to say that is it might be unwise to let ideological peer pressure coerce you into an open license, under the guise of serving some imagined superset of users who "really want" and "otherwise can't use" that, while ignoring the actual market segment who would happily use your product commercially, and the benefits that such restrictive protection provide. Open source can be abused to coerce newcomers to surrender any competitive advantage they might compound by using such "imaginary market" and "ideological purity" arguments, when in reality it may just be a tool of incumbents to weaken any competition, by eroding a startup's ability to capture value. Or in a pithy form: "Go open source! It's bad if you don't" said the Big Bad Wolf Corp to the Little Piggy Startup. "Oh yes, Mr Wolf, anything to please!" said the Little Piggy Startup, trusting the Big Wolf, because, who would want to hurt Little Piggy? Be cautious before you change anything and consider many options! If your instinct is to stick to stronger protections, then it might be wise to do that!