https://web.archive.org/web/20200401215651/https://visualpro...
25 years
Evaluation
Non-commercial use
FOSS development
Contribution development
Teaching and learning vvvv"
For all other cases you go to https://store.vvvv.org/ .
That's why if an "opensource" software does not use one of the standard OSS approved licenses, it is just shareware by another name.
vvvv does not claim anywhere to be open source.
> whilst trying to retain the ability to make money off the popularity when/if it does happen.
vvvv has been around for about 25 years. I would suggest to do a bit more research before jumping to conclusions.
BTW, they do open source quite a few components under proper OSS licenses: https://github.com/vvvv
What if they don’t want anything else enforced by an existing license?
They may know what they want, but that doesn't mean they know how to write a license that delivers what they want.
"Do what I mean, not what I say" is not effective in either code or contracts.
I’m embarrassed to admit my own working model is really limited as I’ve only worked in orgs where license issues were always somebody elses problem. I.e. somebody mandates which licenses can be used, and if there is a commercial offering you need to use, somebody else negotiates the terms and pricing.
Commercial use requires buying a license, and free for non-commercial uses. The website isn't using some bait and switch pseudo open-source tactics too, it's pretty clear that the product is proprietary.
What are you talking about? vvvv is proprietary software (and has been for about 25 years)
Good lawyers aren't automatically good programmers, and good programmers aren't automatically good lawyers.
There is a reason why the Open Source community has standardized around a small set of licenses, and a reason why most attempts at writing new licenses end up in sadness.