Either there's a giant loophole in that license or it prevents you from modifying wg-easy at all. In particular, the prohibition on commercial use is clearly not open source, so the only way you could comply with the requirement to publish your changes in an open-source fork would be for your fork to have a different license. If that is allowed, then the giant loophole is that you could pick MIT, and then the rest of the world could use your fork and ignore the original's license. If that's not allowed, then there's no way for you to comply with that requirement and so you can't modify wg-easy at all.
I think you're misunderstanding how licenses work. Being that wire hole is a conglomerate of a multitude of projects I am required to utilize the most restrictive version of that license.
I believe you're also thoroughly misunderstanding the license terms that are present. The license says that you can utilize it for a commercial settings and in a commercial environment you just cannot resell the product.
This means that an Enterprise can openly use it within their Enterprise they just cannot sell it as a service that they offer.
While this is not the license that I would have chosen for a Greenfield project but at the moment I am at the mercy of the licenses in place for the projects that I am using. Once I replace the UI with a proprietary one everything will be fully open source the way it's intended
Your license does not seem quite the same as wg-easy's. Wg-easy's states that the allowed uses are "for yourself" or "for a company". Yours states "for personal purposes" or "for a company".
As an academic/non-profit researcher who frequently works through my personal devices, I presumably can't use wg-easy in any workplace setting, but presumably can't legally use your software at all.
Apologize for the semantics. By proprietary I mean that I will develop a new UI, have full and whole rights to do with the project that I choose and that would be to fully open source it
