What is a Commercial Use License?

What is the best "free for non-commercial use" license to use for an open source project?

• We are developing a set of applications that we'd like to release under "free for non-commercial use" license. What license would allow us to charge for commercial use of our applications?

• Answer:

  Seems like you mean to dual-license your application.  So that some people (in your case, non-commercial use) get it under an open source license, and other people (commercial establishments) pay for it.  If this is your code, you can use any license(s) you choose [1] -- but note how they'd work in this scheme.  Let's investigate your options. If you make your code available under a permissive Open Source license (like MIT, BSD, or Apache), then what would stop anyone from just using that?  Most open source licenses (e.g. those that conform to the definition [2]) prohibit discriminating against groups or people -- so you cannot say that your code is BSD for people who are employed in non-profits but it is commercial for people who work in telecomm, in West Virgina, and who are Democrats. Thus if it is Open Source for me, it is Open Source for my capitalist friends too. If you chose a GPL license (e.g. GPLv3 or AGPL for example), then you cannot add any restriction to the license itself, but because these licenses are unattractive to many companies (depending on what the software is and what your customers might use it for), they may be willing to pay for a commercial license so that they don't have to deal with the GPL.  This works if your commercial customers want your software but can't use it under the Open Source license.  Thus they are baited by the opportunity to use your code -- thinking it might be "free" and then you give then the 'old switch-a-roo and get them pay for it in order to avoid the implications of the Open Source license. <evil chuckle> Alternatively you can simply license your code as a commercial package and then you don't charge non-profits for it's use.  In other words, make this free for some. -- which is what I think you really want to do.  I don't get the sense that you really want to Open Source this, you want money -- don't you? Note that Open Source and "you can use this for free if I like you" are very different notions.  You would want to Open Source something if you will get contributions back.  In other words, you are saying -- "here is something that I'm sharing with you -- don't worry, I don't make money on this, I make money elsewhere.  And I want you to help us make this better.  In fact, we are all in this together making this better for all of us." I suspect, however that some people think that by calling their product Open Source that this adds some marketing boost -- that customers would think this is better software -- when it is simply published software.  What makes open better is when there is real open participation, not when there is an unattractive license that creates the bait-and-switch to a commercial license.  Some people call that "OpenWashing" [3]. [1] if you are extending an existing Open Source project then you may be restricted in the license you can use -- e.g. it's copyleft properties. But if it's your code, you get to choose. [2] http://opensource.org/docs/osd see items #5 and #6 [3] see: http://www.gilyehuda.com/2011/01/06/openwashing-doesnt-really-work/