> with an open source license it’s harder to force someone to pay for a product Most OSS business models don't try to sell the actual OSS. Usually a separate,

> with an open source license it’s harder to force someone to pay for a product Most OSS business models don't try to sell the actual OSS. Usually a separate, commercial product is built on top of the actual OSS. > You can’t make a living making music. Or art. You can’t even make a living taking care of children. For everyone else smashing their keyboards, I think his point is: It's hard to make good money as an average artist, whereas it's easy to make good money as an average software engineer. > This is where the Free Software mission has faltered despite so many successes: software that people actually touch isn’t free or open. The point is that those commercial applications almost always depend on FOSS. If you have a better idea, go and build a better commercial product. You'll probably depend on similar FOSS.