There still isn't a simple, sustainable and uncomplicated model for developers to earn a full-time living selling their open source product. The Patreon approa

There still isn't a simple, sustainable and uncomplicated model for developers to earn a full-time living selling their open source product. The Patreon approach is not sustainable in the long-term, neither is the company sponsorship route. Charging for support as the principal source of your income is probably one of the least appealing options for most developers. Open-core is one option - GitLab wouldn't be a financial success without it. Dual-license is another option. What does the FSF (Free Software Foundation) have to say on the matter? Charge for distribution [1]. Yet, no-one can realistically charge for distribution today - not least when so many projects are hosted for free on GitHub. If you want to make source code available and still be paid for your product - consider something like the Fair Source License. It's neither closed source or open source. It will appear blasphemous to some open source advocates, but it feels like a reasonable compromise between closed source and permissive open source licences: https://fair.io/ https://fair.io/ [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html