[Fuxy]

I don't understand why everyone is so against his point as far as I'm aware even wikipedia says under "Open source license"[1] that "Licenses which only permit non-commercial redistribution or modification of the source code for personal use only are generally not considered as open-source licenses."

So his point is valid you can't advertise your product as open source if it's not and you shouldn't be allowed to trick the community into thinking it is.

Companies can use whatever license they like it's their right but advertising it as open source when it isn't just to take advantage of the now large community of open source contributors is not acceptable.

Using “Apache+Commons Clause” is just one way used to trick people into believing it's open source when it's not; you may not be using it like that but do you honestly think a company with a team of lawyers didn't do this intentionally so they can take advantage of the open source community?

[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_license)