bobsky

This is limitation around selling software/product not consulting, per bottom of post:

"...if your product is an application that uses such a module to perform select functions, you can use it freely and there are no restrictions on selling your product. However, if what you sell is basically the functionality of the module packaged as a cloud service or on-prem software, Commons Clause does not allow it."

Regarding logs:

"...the site's administrators didn't keep this data for DisruptJ20.org, but DreamHost did...

DreamHost keeps server logs in order to manage the sites of its 400,000-plus customers and identify issues like Distributed Denial of Service attacks.

"We only retain those logs for a very brief time," Dunst wrote. "The DOJ served us with a preservation notice immediately after the inauguration, which is why we still have access to that data in this case."

From the outside it looks like a superb deal, but issues are in the details. Most notably, the Museum is being proposed on PUBLIC land and thus the conflict in meeting the requirements.

As quoted in the article from Presidio Trust board member:

“If it’s your land, you can do pretty much what you want,” Bechtle says. “But with public land, there is just a higher level of scrutiny.”

The trust developed design guidelines for the site. The building could be no higher than 45 feet; as for looks, the trust didn’t want a building that replicated an old-fashioned architectural style...

...in short Lucas proposal didn't meet the guidelines and he didn't want to compromise.

Personally, I think the museum is a fantastic deal and any city would be blessed with the gift -- still hoping SF & Lucas find a mutual agreement (one of which not be exclusive to Lucas items/curation).