> > My personal thought is that we need a new kind of license: community open source. No corporations, just community.

> It exists: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

CC-NC-SA violates the open source definition.

This license is incredibly vague, for example would it be a violation to use NC licensed code in your personal website with a few Google Ads on it that earns a few pennies a day? What about for another personal website/blog that earns hundreds of dollars a week?

As someone commented above, commercial use is an issue. Creative commons is good, but the non-commercial clause prevents it being useful in this case. It seems to be that the crucial issue here is the duplication of the project by forking.

I am unclear of where the boundaries could and should be, but in essence we want money to flow into community source projects. Corporations and commercial entities can and should pay a fair amount. If they don't want to pay, they should not be able to profit from the work of the community.

So only hobbyist software? NC applies to use as well as contribution.

Yes! Another vote for CC-BY-NC-SA! I release my code under this license as well, even snippets I post on my (tiny) blog.

I think this is what a lot of people would use if it were more known about. I feel like a lot of people do not actually read what a license provides and just default to MIT because it is widely used.