Licenses alone do not govern behavior in open source
Why not just simply write a new type of License that would explicitly ban organizations and entities from using the work in any forms, but, in contrast, would grant large possibilities to use the project for individuals for free?<p>Such approach is no doubt contradicts FOSS principals, but I don&#x27;t see how else we can defend ourselves from the business exploitation these days.<p>In addition, I would also explicitly state in such License, that the author preserving exclusive rights of the work. To keep an IP in hands of it&#x27;s creator. When one keeps exclusive ownership rights, it could be clearer how to defend them in the legal field, rather than something developed by uncertain set of contributors.<p>GPL and other FOSS licenses were initial designed for crowd development. But let&#x27;s face the truth, a lot of nice software projects are practically developing by individuals exclusively. Their authors don&#x27;t really require crowd contribution even for maintenance. Yet, society(by &quot;society&quot; I mean independent programmers and individual users, not corporations) can still benefit from using of their work.<p>It&#x27;s a common practice in many other fields of creativity. We rarely see books, visual art creations, scientific articles, etc made by crowd. And there are many examples of outstanding works made this way. And all that works are quit well defended by just normal Copyright laws. So, why shouldn&#x27;t we, the programmers, avoid such obvious and well defined practice?<p>Of course, FOSS could still be applied for large infrastructure things. Such as Linux maybe, or Wikimedia. Crowd development is beneficial in many aspects, but individual creativity is not crowd development. So, my point is that individual authors just shouldn&#x27;t adopt FOSS licenses by default.