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.
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
When Salvatore was sponsored by Redis Labs back in 2015 I contacted them to ask them about their RLEC (Enterprise Cluster) software for my employer, a public multinational.
Had I wanted to use Redis in AWS I would have simply paid for EC2 AWS and paid for Redis Enterprise licenses. This way BOTH companies would make money, survive, and allow me to utilize what I need for my company to make profit.
Paying AWS for Redis service, knowing NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING goes into Salvatore's pocket is, for me, plain stupid.
I want Salvatore, and the rest core contributors whichever they are, to be healthy, happy, motivated, has his financial problems solved and be focused on his amazing software.
I love Redis and I want it to be there forever.
Paying AWS (for Redis service) instead of Salvatore is as smart as being a parent and voting for Herod "for the prosperity of your newly born children".
Likewise. And if they think that going proprietary is the best way to accomplish that, then more power to them. But let's call a spade a spade and not come up with disingenuous nomenclature like "Apache License + Commons Clause" and try to pretend to be "kindof Open Source". That makes as much sense as claiming to be partially pregnant.
It's also clear the goal is to "seem" open source by reusing the license names of open source licenses.
Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code.
<snip>
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
<snip>
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
If you distribute software under a license that violates those terms, you may try to call it Open Source, but the fact is, the community at large is going to call you on your bullshit.
Personally I'm not a Free Software zealot who denies that closed source, proprietary software has a place in the world. But I go back to what I said before: if you're going to distribute proprietary software, you should just call it what it is and not try to hide behind a thin veneer of "open" by creating some mishmash of license terms that is "almost, but not quite Open Source".
The insistence that code is not open if the authors try to retain the rights that make it profitable may have cost us access to decades of source code. Things should in fact be exactly the opposite: in order to maintain the exclusive right to resell, software authors should be required to register the source code with the Copyright Office.
The OSI definition is the "common sense" of Open Source and has been for at least 20 years.
As battles go, I'd ask if this is really the hill you want to die on.
As much as I like Redis, and even though Core is still under a plain old OSS license, these shenanigans would make me very suspicious of RedisLabs and reluctant to ever do business with them, or use Redis at all. :-(
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_source