Under the OSIs definition of open-source, and under the definition of free software, anyone can buy your software and redistribute it to others for free. This effectively limits you to earning money only off the labor of your work, not the work itself, and makes your business model effectively useless. This is such a huge difference yet the FSF, as always, confuse people (maybe even intentionally) by saying that free software can be commercial. No, it cannot. The services you provide can be, the labor you provide can be, but the software - no.
You can remove that freedom to the user. After all, the source is available, it can still be tested for malware, but your work won't be open-source.
I had screwed up by explicitly stating a Creative Commons license on the page, so I'm certain that it's hopeless. Fuck the Archive team, they can burn in hell. They are the epitome of lawful evil.
GNU Taler doesn't have those issues. It keeps payers anonymous, while payees not, allowing them to be taxed. Being a payment system, any currency can be attached to it, including USD and Bitcoin.
The one I'm interested in would be one, where viewing, modifying, recompiling the source is allowed, but redistribution is allowed only to those who had bought the license from all owners of the source and it's modifications. It would produce a nice "waterfall" effect.
It wouldn't be open-source nor free software, but most people don't really need limitless redistribution, and the source would be proof that said software isn't malicious.