[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.