[cyphar]

You cannot have a "fully open" license which disallows commercial usage. Both the OSI and FSF definitions of "open source" and "free software" licenses would exclude such a license. Of course you can create a proprietary license which disallows commercial usage, but it won't be "fully open".

[thescriptkiddie]

FSF-compatible licenses absolutely can exclude commercial usage, and software can be made simultaneously available under a separate (paid) commercial license if the authors wish. It's only the OSI that doesn't allow this.

[dwohnitmok]

> FSF-compatible licenses absolutely can exclude commercial usage

Can they? The FSF seems pretty strict on saying that commercial usage cannot be excluded.

> “Free software” does not mean “noncommercial.” On the contrary, a free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. This policy is of fundamental importance—without this, free software could not achieve its aims.

From https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

[dragonwriter]

> FSF-compatible licenses absolutely can exclude commercial usage

No, they can't, use-restricted licenses are non-free, by the FSF definition.

> software can be made simultaneously available under a separate (paid) commercial license if the authors wish.

This is true, but the Free license cannot be use-restricted, or it ceases to be a Free license (if the copyright owner, owing no obligation to any upstream licensor, does it, they could add the use restriction to a Free license, but it would by that act cease to be a free license; that violates Freedom 0.)