> so long as I'm non-commercial, I can just treat it as BSD 2 clause.
No, you can't, because if it was BSD 2-clause, you could relicense it rather freely. But you can't with this, because the commercial use limitation makes it incompatible with many licenses with which BSD 2-clause is compatible. (Including GPLv3)
Also, because you have to include the full license terms (including the requirement to secure a commercial license from the agent of the original licensor) with derived versions, well, if AD ever gets competition as a licensing agent (even from someone using a compatible pseudo-open license), downstream commercial users of software which has modules with different licensing agents face the prospect of having to secure multiple commercial license from different licensing agents to see the software.
For a non-commercial end user of only the “root” software, it similar to BSD 2-clause. For developers (even non-commercial), it's much more restrictive.
It also would allow for unsavory gamesmanship due to the "license available" trigger. Wait for widespread adoption, then release a commercial license. Suddenly you have a lot of scrambling to either replace the product or buy a license. Alternatively, license cost could be inflated greatly after adoption.
I just see the terms as creating too many unknowns about the future. Maybe I missed it, but do you have to constantly monitor all your dependencies for whether they may have just released a commercial license?
The effects of the license shouldn't vary depending on some outside input (the existence or not of a commercial license).
And the 90-day "trial" period seems both too long and too short at the same time. It's long enough to make tracking a little more difficult and too short to even make it into production from testing for many uses. (I assume the 90-days starts as soon as an org begins testing the product, not necessarily starting upon shipping.)
No, you can't, because if it was BSD 2-clause, you could relicense it rather freely. But you can't with this, because the commercial use limitation makes it incompatible with many licenses with which BSD 2-clause is compatible. (Including GPLv3)
Also, because you have to include the full license terms (including the requirement to secure a commercial license from the agent of the original licensor) with derived versions, well, if AD ever gets competition as a licensing agent (even from someone using a compatible pseudo-open license), downstream commercial users of software which has modules with different licensing agents face the prospect of having to secure multiple commercial license from different licensing agents to see the software.
For a non-commercial end user of only the “root” software, it similar to BSD 2-clause. For developers (even non-commercial), it's much more restrictive.