OT: non-commercial open source license?

[Evan Leibovitch]

Ivan Avery Frey wrote:

> Well yes and no. The problem here is communication. And since I'm 
> jumping into the middle of this discussion I'm going to really muddy 
> it up.
>
> I believe Aaron asked whether there was an open source license that 
> prohibited commercial use, thinking that there was one.
>

Some of the answers took the form of a plea to get the author to 
reconsider the "no commercial use" clause and choose genuine open 
source, given that licenses like the GPL prohibit competitors from 
closing off private copies. Another option suggested was a Qt-like dual 
license option, allowing the author to maintain proprietary rights while 
releasing a GPL version.

> Since there isn't one, the question should have been:
>
> What software licence allows most uses except commercial?

For that I would gladly refer people to the Creative Commons website, 
which easily allows authors (not just of software, but any creative 
work) to fine tune their licenses according to need.

http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/meet-the-licenses

HTH.

- Evan

--
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