"This is a major failure of free and open source" I agree. So many developers would simply like to sell their open source product so customers can run the prod

"This is a major failure of free and open source" I agree. So many developers would simply like to sell their open source product so customers can run the product themsleves. It's simply impossible. It's ironic that so many SaaS businesses are built on open source - a model that gives users even less control. My recommendation is for developers to consider the 'source-only' option: you charge customers for your product and provide the source code. The code is not open source, but it still gives your customer flexibility to adapt the product to fit their needs. There are successful examples of independent developers making a full-time living using this model, some even publish their source code on GitHub but rely on the honesty of their customers to not redistribute the code (examples include Kirby CMS and Craft CMS). By the way, the GNU Project (supported by the Free Software Foundation) has never updated their advice on selling open source software to reflect reality. They still advise developers to charge for support or documentation (deeply unpopular with developers and customers). Or charging for distribution of software. This might have made sense in an era of software CDs and dial-up internet but make no sense in a era of broadband and GitHub: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html