This part of FOSS culture I really dislike as a developer.
Many people seem to consider an offence that other developers need to make a living, instead of being grateful of being able to sell stuff using software they haven't paid a dime for.
Then become outraged when the developers come to the conclusion that the baker won't sell bread for pull requests.
This is what moved me into the direction of suggesting dual license for open source projects, every time someone consults me on it.
What you are suggesting is the part of a greedy FOSS project. One that enjoys the external open source contributions, yet still charges for features in the software. It's disgusting and an insult to your contributors, unless you pay them all money as well.
There is nothing wrong with making money, but don't to it with sleazy tactics like this that put you in a conflict of interest. Charge for support or a hosted version, but don't artificially cripple the software. If you do want to go that way, don't be open source at all because you are just a leech on the community.
> What you are suggesting is the part of a greedy FOSS project. One that enjoys the external open source contributions, yet still charges for features in the software. It's disgusting and an insult to your contributors, unless you pay them all money as well.
I am all for charging for support or hosted versions. However this usually only suits server side software or developer tools. There are plenty more of other types of software.
What I dislike are the companies that just use FOSS as free beer, specially in closed source products or behind SaaS walls.
So when asked for advice what type of license one should give to their projects, my recommendation is always to go GPL for open source projects. If the developer community gets contacted by commercial vendors, then either create a special license for the respective vendor, or have a general one for those type of cases.
But always use a license that prevents people selling your work as theirs.
Many people seem to consider an offence that other developers need to make a living, instead of being grateful of being able to sell stuff using software they haven't paid a dime for.
Then become outraged when the developers come to the conclusion that the baker won't sell bread for pull requests.
This is what moved me into the direction of suggesting dual license for open source projects, every time someone consults me on it.