Maybe its me and I am more than okay but I went into a whole license rabbit hole trying to figure out the license that it uses

It uses this "personal use zlib license" And So earlier it was actually licensed under the zlib license which I think of as in something similar to the MIT license (I think, I am not a lawyer)

My issue with this is that the personal use zlib license to me feels like its made up by the author, and that you need to contact the author for a commerical license?

At this point, he should've just used something like a dual license with AGPL + commerical license.

Honestly, I get it, I also wish that there was some osi compliant that made open source make sense as a developer as open source is a really weak chain in this economy and I get it, but such licenses basically make your project only source available.

I have nothing wrong with that and honestly just wanted this to be discussed here. I had a blast looking at all the licenses in wikipedia or opensource.com website. Artistic license seems really cool if you want relicense or something. I am looking more into it. I genuinely wish if something like sspl could've been considered open source as it doesn't impact 90% of users and only something like aws/big tech.

Yes, ad-hoc licenses are a big red flag. What counts as "personal use"? Does that mean "non-commercial", or that you can only use it for yourself and cannot distribute software made with it? If someone distributes free open source software, would that count as personal use? Or would the end-users of that software be restricted from using it for whatever counts as non-personal-use due to this dependency?