Relicense with Commons Clause compatible license

[thombruce]

I have become aware of a clause in the GPLv3 license which permits end users to ignore and remove the Commons Clause:

All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term. If a license document contains a further restriction but permits relicensing or conveying under this License, you may add to a covered work material governed by the terms of that license document, provided that the further restriction does not survive such relicensing or conveying.

For this project, I believe the Commons Clause is an important protection so would like to reconsider licensing options...

We will probably switch to one of:

1. MIT
2. Apache 2.0
3. BSD (2 or 3)

[thombruce]

The main difference between MIT and Apache 2.0 is a patent clause, I believe... which I don't think is strictly necessary for this project; certainly not at the present stage (none of the work is patented).

The BSD 2 and MIT are roughly equivalent.

The BSD 3 prevents someone from claiming false endorsement (e.g. "My derivative project is endorsed by Thom Bruce, creator of Verse"). While that "e.g." is a crude and inaccurate example, you get the gist: It effectively discourages claiming that a derivative work is endorsed by the licensor (me) of the original source. And I don't think this is strictly necessary either.

The simplest approach is the Commons Clause amended MIT license, and I think that's the way I'll go with this.

[thombruce]

Relicensed under MIT + Commons Clause as of 36e097beb66286f6dd8a3df99cbc666a2179681f