[elteto]

I think you are splitting hairs. Yes those models “exist”, if by exist you mean they have dual-licensing setups with different tiers (community, professional, etc).

The point is that most individuals who open source their code do so without expecting financial returns from it. In that context, whether Carmack has a $1 or $1e9 doesn’t make a difference.

[jraph]

I'm not splitting hairs, it's a crucial aspect and a common misconception that it would be quite helpful to get rid of (hence my reaction). And no, it's not necessarily dual licensing (why not though) or different tiers, or fauxpensource or whatever, there are many projects which are completely open source. See for instance Nextcloud, XWiki, PostgreSQL, Linux...

Again, as I said, I was only reacting to that specific part of your comment, because it is obviously wrong.

(and thus the rest can't follow since you use it to draw a conclusion -- which doesn't mean you can't fix this, I don't know, actually I didn't get your point and I don't see how it counters what you replied to -- but I'm not really concerned about this part)

[crote]

You're forgetting about Red Hat & friends, where the software is 100% open source and the for-profit product is actually the support contract.

[wiseowise]

> The point is that most individuals who open source their code do so without expecting financial returns from it. In that context, whether Carmack has a $1 or $1e9 doesn’t make a difference.

Bruh, there are thousands of projects, maybe tens of thousands, that survive solely on donations, hundreds thousands written by hungry students trying to land their first gig. Maybe you’re right in “free as in beer” sense, but you’re certainly, majorly wrong in general OSS definition.