Basically, "BSD, unless you're a $1B+ valued company that is not paying our software foundation $10k/mo".
It allowed students, hobbyists and freelancers to use the software for free, for any purpose, but companies, institutions and governments had to pay to play.
This idea does not seem to translate in an obvious way to software released under an open source license.
I was never after the nickles and dimes of users, always had my eyes in the deep pockets of major players. 99% of my sales came from multi-billion dollar corporations, universities and government.
1. Does that mean a student would have to pay to install it on their school computer? Or maybe a school provided laptop?
2. What about personal installs for other people? Not as a business or service, but merely on a friend or relative's computer?
Because in theory, both of those would come under 'someone else owning the machine', but they'd also be seen as personal usage by any rational person.
Case 2 clearly falls into the free usage policy, but in case 1 if the school is requiring students to install this software in their school-provided hardware as a way of sidestepping licensing fees I think they are stretching it a bit.
A couple of years ago I was working for a UN organisation, and to get approval to upgrade our plan of an alerting tool from something like $10/mo to $25/mo required many people involved and weeks of time (not weeks of people time, but weeks from 'we want this' to 'ok'). For something new we would have to evaluate it against other competing products, and then it's just a waste of everyone's time, instead of 'gem install sidekiq'.
Admittedly not every company/organisation is this extreme, but once you get to a certain size most companies have something like this.
(I felt we paid our dues to the open source community as we open sourced a lot of our own in house tools and helped maintain a lot of other projects we regularly used)