Would this be enforceable, though?
The primary reason why it would be enforceable is that you need a license to run a program (copying to ram, as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDY_Industries,_LLC_v._Blizzar...). A build program's license could thus include any type of conditions which dictate terms for usage, including what kind of license that project has.
The only limits are those inherent to copyright itself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitations_and_exceptions_to_...), and consumer protection laws. Consumer protection law would be the best guess as to limit what kind of conditions a product has after sale, but so far most legal system has chosen not to do so, and it get even more complex area when the product is given away for free.
Bud will always be free for open source projects.
I postponed the whole licencing and open-sourcing business because I would like to determine what would suit Bud the best.
Maybe something like the GPL licence with an additional clause that projects built with bud must be open-sourced too. And perhaps dual-licenced for proprietary cases (something like qt).
Anyways, any feedback on this is topic would be very welcome!
Thanks a bunch!