[rhodey]

This is simple I wrote a license The license says there are two licenses If you are non-commercial you get MIT If you are commercial you email for terms

There is nowhere a claim that this is MIT

[ahazred8ta]

Your lawyer will explain to you that what you wanted, and what your license terms actually mean, are two different things. There are noncommercial users who have downloaded your software and are using it under the terms of the MIT license. You already gave them permission. Now, they can give copies to commercial users, who can use it under the terms of the MIT license. Your lawyer will explain this to you.

[rhodey]

> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software

[Retr0id]

You can create any custom license terms you like, as you have done, but if you refer to it as the "MIT License" (which you do, explicitly) without the source being available under the MIT license, you invite only confusion.

[rhodey]

If I published using any non-commercial license whatsoever there would be disagreements so here we are all the same

[xorcist]

So being non-commercial I can just fork and redistribute the software under MIT license? Strange, but acceptable.