FSF marks commons clause as non-free, recommends users fork software using it
Is the controversy here that the Commons Clause piggy backs on top of existing free software licenses and thus could mislead users to think that software using it is free software when it's in fact proprietary by their definitions?<p>As a part-time independent developer of software myself, I personally find the combination of a free software license + Commons Clause to be very compelling. I'm willing to grant to the user every right offered by free software licenses with the exception of rights to commercial use.<p>If that means my software has to be labeled as proprietary by the FSF, so be it, but at the same time I'd prefer not to mislead users into thinking my software is being offered under a vanilla free software license.<p>Is there a proprietary license I can release my software under, with the properties of a free software + commons clause license, that doesn't run the risk of misleading users? If not, I'll likely continue releasing my software under a free software + commons clause license, along with some kind of disclaimer above the license section in the project's readme.