[dlkinney]

As one of the "Linux for FLOSS" users--and, yes, quite loud about it--I am inclined to agree.

I would pay good money for a high quality application on Linux. But in large part, one of the less-philosophical, more-practical things that I value about FLOSS is the opportunity to fix things if something doesn't work right. While I would gladly purchase an incredible, closed source application, I would much more value the distribution of the source code (with a workable build chain) along with that purchase.

In that manner, I KNOW I'm not just a buck in their wallet. It protects my purchase, to some degree, and demonstrates a good faith relationship with the developer. Even if I'm not allowed to distribute the code, and much prefer FLOSS, the right to maintain my purchase is incredibly important to me.

Of course, that's almost never an option, but to my mind, that would be a fair compromise...

~A Loud FLOSS Supporter

[TimJYoung]

I've always thought that this is the key to bridging the gap between proprietary and OSS, and it's what we do with our software. In our case, the source code does cost extra, but that's because we're selling developer libraries and we typically need to provide extra support to customers that purchase the source code because they are also (typically) customizing the source code in some way.

[seventhtiger]

I really like how Epic is handling Unreal Engine 4. The source is available, and the standard license is revenue share. It's not necessarily open source, but it reaped so many benefits from public contributions. You can modify it and extend it for your own use. The revenue share means they are actively interested in your success.

Of course video games are highly public consumer products. So you can't actually abuse their model because if your game is successful it will be well known.

[TimJYoung]

I think you may be on to something here. For smaller companies like us that are in niche markets, the source code being available isn't a big deal because the level of piracy is fairly low (and you don't get support).

For larger companies in larger markets, it's much, much easier to see when someone is abusing a license or pirating the software without paying.

[huhtenberg]

> I would much more value the distribution of the source code along with that purchase.

Everyone would until they realize how exceptionally hard and draining it is for a vendor to deal with blatant rip-offs and trivial repackaging of said source code, sold under a different name for a fraction of the price by some random outlet in China.

[zaarn]

That would be another options, yes, though I don't think I've seen many employ source-available while also giving access to a working build chain/script.