[echelon]

This is great.

"Open" is too binary. You can't exclude companies that would harm you.

We need "fair", "equitable", or "sustainable" (as this one is termed) licenses.

You should be able to give your customers 100% the ability to use, modify, and redistribute so long as they don't resell you.

You should be able to cut off Amazon and Google from using you.

You should be able to prevent certain uses, like managed versions of your software.

[graemep]

The problem is that it creates a lot of uncertainty. For example, with this license, what usage is commercial? Can you distribute it to customers who buy other things from you? Can you offer services related to it - e.g. can you install it for a customer?

If you modify the software under what terms are your modifications distributed? Do they have to be distributed under the same terms? There is not transfer of copyright so the original authors cannot distribute the modified version commercially as part of their enterprise edition, that means that every modified version is a fork that cannot be merged back in?

As I said in another comment discouraging forks is a disadvantage for users as it leaves you dependant on one supplier.

The AGPL achieves the aim of deterring the likes of Amazon from providing the software as a service (at least without contributing their changes back, in practice the will not use it at all) without these sorts of problems.