[mchahn]

> If you want to license your software under a proprietary license, just license it under a proprietary license.

It's not that simple. I'm about to come out with a 3d-printed product that will sell in a similar market to 3d printers. My product is begging to be open-source hardware since anyone with a 3d-printer can create a large part of it and I'd be ecstatic (and richer) if the product developed a community of followers.

However, MakerBot did this and it was a mistake. Clones quickly came out of china at half the price. MakerBot ended the open-source and developed newer products. My outfit is not big enough to do something like this.

So I have considered using a commons-based license. Makers can play with my product without others undercutting my prices.

[mindcrime]

So you're planning to bring a proprietary product to market, and make the code "shared source". There's nothing novel about that, and there are already licenses out there specifically for allowing "code available, but you can't redistribute". Using a faux "open source" license like "Apache + Commons Clause" is disingenuous, confusing, and irresponsible.

[mchahn]

I need to learn about this. Does shared source actually allow one to arbitrarily use the source? I thought the only distinction was that it didn't allow contributions.

[Nemo_bis]

Your problem is probably with distribution and distribution in modified form, i.e. freedoms 2 and 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software#Definition_and_t...

You don't need to distribute or license the software or process you use to produce the printer itself, I suppose.

Help is available to choose a license which fits your needs. https://opensource.org/faq#which-license

[icebraining]

All open source licenses would allow competitors to build and sell their own clones, which is what mchahn doesn't want.