
Free Software Costs Something - ghuntley
https://dev.to/ghuntley/it-s-clear-that-free-software-actually-costs-something-4522
======
rvz
This is what a dual license GPLv3/LGPL or some Creative-Commons license
already solves. You can license the source under one of those licenses and
also have a 'commercial license' that allows one to pay monthly to have the
right to use your software commercially or close-source it. This allows the
maintainer to be supported by their work and the company can use the software
commercially. The Qt Company does this.

Licensing it under MIT or BSD essentially risks the maintainer for encouraging
closed-source derivatives whereby companies are not required to contribute
back or pay for any support, hence the maintainer is working for free.

------
orangecat
License Zero is not remotely open source in letter or in spirit; it's a
proprietary source-available license like Unreal Engine. Which is a perfectly
valid choice, but please be honest about it rather than pretending that it's
not officially open source only because of a technicality.

