[JoshTriplett]

I agree with the goal, just not with the method.

Many people already make a living working on Open Source, for a wide variety of companies. This project, however, doesn't help people make a living via Open Source; it encourages people to release code under a proprietary license with source code available.

[forsaken]

Is that not better than adopting a more classic proprietary model where the source code isn't available?

I totally agree with the philosophical argument around OSS --but at the end of the day, people need to eat. If you're going to argue that we should all OSS our code, you need to specify a way to make it sustainable (see http://www.fordfoundation.org/library/reports-and-studies/ro... for more on the unsustainability).

[JoshTriplett]

If it's not Open Source, better that it not look Open Source and cause confusion. See also the various "Shared Source" schemes over the years, which caused similar confusion.

I've seen that report; I don't think I'd characterize its description as "unsustainable" so much as "needs further attention".

[DonaldFisk]

OK, suppose I have some software which is well written, works straight out of the box, and doesn't require any support. I'm quite happy for people to use it, but would like a share of any revenue commercial users gain through its use. With FOSS, if I give it away, I won't get any. If I sell it, there's nothing to stop the purchaser from giving it away, so I get paid once before seeing my work being given away.

[JoshTriplett]

Various common models, in order of simplicity and effectiveness:

- License it under a copyleft license. Works the same as what you describe, except s/commercial/proprietary/, and is completely compatible with the FOSS ecosystem. You get paid by any company (or individual) who wants to ship proprietary software built on your code.

- Work for a company that gains revenue by releasing the code, and pays you accordingly. For instance, a company that sells more hardware because of the code.

- As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, charge for compiled binaries, for the convenience of non-developers.

- Provide a paid service based on the code.

- Require payment up front before releasing the software (crowdfunding model). Only works before you write/release the software, and benefits from an established reputation.

[DonaldFisk]

I don't see any way of legally enforcing payment for the use of software released under the terms of the GNU GPL. Points 2 and 3 have the risk of being undercut, though they might work in some cases. Point 4 might be valid, but once its released there's no further guarantee you'll be paid.

I've thought about licensing issues, as I have software I'd like to release when it's ready, but I also would like to be paid for it by anyone who uses it to generate revenue for themselves.

Up until the early 1980s, system software development was paid for by various computer manufacturers, as it could only run on their machines. As a result of generic hardware and open-source software, hardly any similar work exists today.

[nickpsecurity]

In a similar discussion, someone working for OpenSUSE pointed out that their business model is selling FOSS. They make about $20+ million a year. Red Hat even more despite the fact that CentOS is basically Red Hat for free. You have a potential advantage in the enterprise market where companies are hesitant to take free software since they want someone to be responsible for it. They'll pay you for GPL stuff if they can call you for improvements or fixes.

[JoshTriplett]

For the first point, it applies when releasing code other people will want to link to, such that the GPL would apply. It doesn't help with a standalone program that nobody wants to build on or derive from; you'd need the other cases for that.

[fundamental]

I'd say a lot of it varies on who the audience is. Many FOSS projects try some form of crowdfunding at some point and I think a good detailed summary of the methods that they try are documented at: https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/othercrowdfunding