| > That's one option; the other is to require that contributors assign you copyright of their contributions (perhaps with compensation) I thought about it before I made my previous comment, Good to know this is a thing. > permissive licenses "don't work as well" because there is less incentive for anyone to pay you for the other license; typically all they'd be avoiding is the attribution requirements. As far consumers are concerned, I think it largely depends upon the project; If it's complex to setup and run then I guess people would use the hosted version. I use open-source Aseprite because it's available on AUR, But I did pay for the license on their website which I presume most wouldn't. Perhaps the real concern with permissible license are the competitors, Who get to use your code to reduce their barrier for entry. Then again, Software code at current times aren't that big of a barrier to entry. One thing which all these discussions prove to me is that open-source application funding is very complex, Depending upon it for livelihood with just good will of the consumers is very risky as consumers are on average poor and corporations are on average greedy. |