One of the main things that they have discussed in interviews is trying to create a third pole of licensing structures. There is Free Software, OSS, and then they want to create a 3rd option with non-commercial clauses that everyone can rally behind for people who want to use those sorts of clauses. I think this is a pretty interesting idea and it will be neat to see how far they take it.
From what I’ve seen, the problems that have cropped up with open source software doesn’t seem to be corporate use, but instead companies that operate at scale without doing much to improve the software they are making bank on. AGPLv2 bridges that gap imo. What I’ve noticed is companies that want to use software without the requirements imposed will pay for custom licenses so they can make changes without having to share back. The money from commercial licenses ends up benefiting the projects using the license. Grafana and Minio seem to be doing great in this model.
Many software projects have had licenses with no-commercial-use clauses over the last 30 years or more. If such a license were a good idea, why can't I think of a single example of a project that kept such a license and succeeded or became popular?
I think that the stuff they are putting out on sourcefirst.com is more of a formal treatment of their licensing terms and how they work. The stuff there is versioned iterations of something. They also bought the trademark for the term. They clearly want to lock it in as a set of standards.
