Language is vague and dangerous to licensees - Prevents Adoption

“the License does not grant to you, the right to Sell the Software ...'Sell' means...provide to third parties, for a fee or other consideration... a product or service whose value derives, entirely or substantially, from the functionality of the Software."

How do you define "substantially"? This vaguesness creates a loop hole a licensor can exploit, demanding compensation from a licensee, by arguing on the "substantially" key word. And therefore, no company with the right legal team or understanding of this issue will support a technology be adopted that includes a Common Clause.

One example of this is evident on Dgraph's forum, where people are expressing their unwillingness to use the software due to this clause: https://discuss.dgraph.io/t/switching-dgraph-to-a-liberal-license-dgraph-blog/2411/29

Start by reviewing the quoted Commons Clause “Sell” definition and the linked Dgraph discussion. Identify what “substantially” should mean and whether the license text can state that meaning without creating new ambiguity; done requires an agreed replacement or clarification, which this issue does not specify.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.