Hi Pedro, Thanks for those mentions, I love the qutebrowser project and am warmed to see other examples of GPL projects finding ways to monetise their work.
I am wary of going too far off topic, but I think a convincing argument against the use of "permissive" licenses like MIT is that if your project grows above a certain size, it necessitates CLAs in addition to a license. If you do not use a platform like GitHub who guarantees that inbound=outbound, then you don't necessarily have a right to your contributors' changes, which I'm sure could be painful. Sure, it's an unlikely situation, but so are most pathological behaviours that necessitate a license. On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 3:53 PM Pedro Lucas Porcellis <porcel...@eletrotupi.com> wrote: > > Hi, Laslo and Hiltjo, > > > You don't sell CDs with your software anymore (this > > worked maybe 20 years ago), but you can make good money with providing > > support, which is, I think, the most probable direction. > > > > I think for businesses a development-model of selling and providing > > > the full FOSS and offer paid services for the custom work done is a > > > more fair model. > > Just to shout out and promote some examples about this, this has been > the sourcehut project [1] motto and I've seen on some other minor > projects as the miniflux app [2] and qutebrowser [3] folow the same idea > (kind of). > > It has also been the subject of a long (but good!) discussion on > LibrePlanet Discuss in the last days about this subject, if any of you > people are interested [4]. > > Best regards, > Pedro Lucas > > -- > > [1]: https://sourcehut.org/blog/2019-10-23-srht-puts-users-first > [2]: https://miniflux.app > [3]: https://qutebrowser.org > [4]: > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2020-09/msg00041.html >