[enriquto]

> It didn't work. If it is available as open-source, they don't _need_ a different license.

Don't they? I'm surprised to hear that. I have sold a few proprietary versions of my AGPL codes (which were identical to the original one, but with the license stripped). Not enough to make a living, but I can buy some fancy bikes with the money.

In some cases, they even paid --separately-- for support and a few features of the software that were of particular interest to them. For some reason, many companies are extremely frightened of the AGPL, but a dual AGPL/commercial licensing seems to fit them very well. This is a nice model for free software distribution, but it only suits small projects that do not get external contributors.

[rui314]

I could buy bikes too, but as you wrote that's not enough to make a living. This is my full time project. I could earn a mid 6 figure salary if I work for a big tech, and I think I'm creating a more valuable program than I did when I was working for a big tech, and in return I make money that counts in "fancy bicycle" unit... I think it's not wrong to say it didn't work quite well.

[gavinray]

I might get shit on for saying this here, but I agree with you that it's very difficult to make a decent living on fully "free" software.

I've had orgs not bat at an eye paying a few thousand for a software license if there are justifiable productivity returns and the license is required for us to continue to use the software.

If that license is not required, we would never give you a dime. It's sad, but true. Those few thousand, to many companies, are pennies on the dollar. Just price it graciously so you don't leave the little guys out.

You'll get grumbles but do what you need to survive if you want to do this full time and for a living. God knows you, of all people, have earned it.