> I'd prefer if there was a major non-commercial license for code Non-commercial licenses are considered non-free. If you intend to be share your code with th

> I'd prefer if there was a major non-commercial license for code Non-commercial licenses are considered non-free. If you intend to be share your code with the world and don't want others to profit on your work without giving anything in return, go with something like (A)GPL. Sure, people will be able to profit on your work, but in return, you get all their bug fixes, testing, support, and improvements. You have to realize that most contributions to GPL software is made by people who work for money, something that a non-commercial license would not let them do. So by releasing your software with such a license, you prevent the best people from eventually contributing. And why would you open source your software if not to take advantage of the contribution of others (in code or otherwise)? Another reason why you would want to publish your software under GPL (or compatible) is to make use of other GPL (or compatible) software and libraries, you can't do that if you publish under a non-commercial license. So, lots of drawbacks, few advantages. If you really insist on using a non-commercial license, there are a few listed here: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwareLicenses https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwa...