Just say it is commons clause, not ordinary open source.

I've even become convinced (based on someone digging out enough references) that the term ipen source was being used before OSI, but for the rest of the HN, just say "commons clause" without saying "open source" and I guess most bashing disappears.

There will always be that person annoyed that it isn't AGPL - or MIT for that matter - but for most if us we just want to know what the license actually is.

>I've even become convinced (based on someone digging out enough references) that the term ipen source was being used before OSI

Basically at the same time. Christine Peterson seems to have coined it in 1998, the same year the OSI was founded. https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source...

As far as I'm concerned, people can use whatever license they want. I just think it's borderline deceptive to claim something is an open source license even if it clearly doesn't meet the OSI (or FSF) definition.

This is just a special case of option 3. Why would this get you licensing fees when it wouldn't?

> commercial use restriction with an open source license

Any licence which explicitly forbids commercial use is by definition not a Free Software licence or an Open Source licence.

Or do you mean something like the AGPLv3, which isn't explicitly anti-commercial but which has strong terms that scare off many companies?