I agree with the parent post, and the sibling. MIT doesn't make much sense in your scenario. Dual-licensing is usually a copy left license, and some sort of pri

I agree with the parent post, and the sibling. MIT doesn't make much sense in your scenario. Dual-licensing is usually a copy left license, and some sort of private/commercial license agreement to protect against the case the parent comment mentions. The people who want to support you are not the problem. They'd probably donate too if they would buy a license in this thought experiment. The people who don't want to support you are. One of them could buy a license, relicense as MIT. And either they'd get updates with their paid license, in which case they'd just release those as MIT too, or wait for your next stable version and buy again and so on. Or they would just fork the project, and start their own business around it, without having had any more cost than a single license....