Yeah, I'm not sure why he's trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole here. His needs aren't met by OSS licenses, so he should just use a non-OSS license and be done with it. That license can be as permissive as he wants for noncommercial use, and he can still make the project source-available.
Think you're missing the idea behind "open source software"
That was my takeaway too. Open source licenses are a bad fit for proprietary software that you want to sell.
Yeah, I'm not sure why he's trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole here. His needs aren't met by OSS licenses, so he should just use a non-OSS license and be done with it. That license can be as permissive as he wants for noncommercial use, and he can still make the project source-available.
Exactly. Guy wants a shareware license. not OSS