I suppose the entire point of open sourcing software is to take a step back from generating revenue through IP. That doesn't exclude charging for the hours one

I suppose the entire point of open sourcing software is to take a step back from generating revenue through IP. That doesn't exclude charging for the hours one put in solving specific issues or requests raised by third parties. Open source only provides a legal framework that defines the terms by which one distributes code. It was never intended to be a business model in the first place. Not does the entire concept claim to be a business model. As such, all software projects being equal, choosing a permissive or proprietary license is just a fork in the road. The bigger picture here is the intent and motivation of developers that drives them to build software and share it with the world. Sadly, the hard truth is that there's no such thing as a free lunch. If you provide the output and the labour for free, discussing that such efforts are unsustainable is a bit of a cognitive dissonance on the part of the maintainers. It's totally valid to write code, release it for free and then charge users for the maintenance of the tool. That is, put a figure to issues and only solve them as a maintainer when enough users care to chip in the hard currency to cover the time. Sure, many FOSS maintainers don't do it for the money. They simply want to have a positive impact on the world. Share something cool with the world. Assert their identity as the author of their own creative vision. But if history teaches anything, great artists have always walked this tight rope between covering living costs through patronage and finding freedom and artistic license to actualise their own vision.