…what?
Your comment below plus everything you have posted and referenced are perfect illustrations of non-sequitur: get a grip of your arguments already.
What you wrote above this snippet implies that every user must pay a license, and here you are arguing that the license is more tailored for companies, not end-users.
My point (for those who do not get it) is that locking the OS behind a paywall (under the form of a license) to use it means that source code must remain inaccessible so that nobody is capable to circumvent the requirement for, in this case, licenses.
Of course, only the proprietary bits could be licensed (e.g. Silica), but that would render Sailfish no more than a very bare Linux distro that is easily replaceable by the likes of Droidian or even mainline distros (at the cost of features).
EDIT: wanted to add, is there anything stopping companies from currently building their own internal images without owing anything to Jolla? Unless specified in the terms, access to source code for building images makes this plausible.
P.S. stop speculating about the economics of Jolla (or companies in general) with the eyes of a middle-schooler; you are clearly not qualified for this.