OT: non-commercial open source license?

[Sy Ali]

On 1/8/06, Evan Leibovitch <evan-ieNeDk6JonTYtjvyW6yDsg at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Sy Ali wrote:
>
> >On 1/4/06, Aaron Vegh <aaronvegh-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >>So the question became: is there an open source licence that would
> >>restrict use to personal only, and not commercial?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >While everyone goes off into their tangents, if I ignore "open source"
> >then the short answer is yes..
> >
> Please don't be insulting to other answers, just because you have your
> own (which dismisses the question in the process).
>
> The short answer to the original question is that you can have a license
> that restricts commercial use _or_ one that's open source -- the two
> concepts are mutually exclusive.
>
> The so-called "tangents" attempt to explain the differences between the
> two possible paths.

Please don't be offended.  I chose to interpret the question less
literally..  Aaron expressed some difficulty when trying to "penetrate
the nether regions" and so I interpreted that as needing a much more
direct answer.

I saw the question as "I know this software author who won't give
_anyone_ his source code because he doesn't have a license that stops
commercial users from using his code.  Can someone recommend
something?"

I use "tangent" to describe replies attacking the wording of the
question so literally instead of trying out fuzzy perhaps-correct
answers.  Yes the issue is a big deal of course, and worthy of some
conversation, but Aaron expressed tiredness at such roads.  It's that
programmer who would do well to understand the issue better, not this
questioner .. which is why the article links being given are a good
idea.
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml