The goal of enforce mode is to increase conversion rate. Let's for example imagine following rates: - Donations: 0.1% (Open Collective / GitHub Sponsors) - Tr

The goal of enforce mode is to increase conversion rate. Let's for example imagine following rates: - Donations: 0.1% (Open Collective / GitHub Sponsors) - Trust mode: 1% - Enforce mode: 10%-50% Even if we do a poor job with the enforce mode and achieve a rate of only 10%, the Lsos still increases your conversion rate by two orders of magnitude. That said, we do take measures to strengthen enforce mode: - Closed-source production build pipeline. The development pipeline is still open-source to allow contributions. If someone wants to fork your project, he'll need to recreate your build production pipeline which makes your project only 99% open source; it's not perfect but it can be a good trade-off. - Fake anti-Lsos library. A way to cheat the Lsos is to write a script that removes the Lsos library code from your production build. We take measures against this practice (such as inlining the Lsos library, randomizing the structure of the inlined code, etc.) and we anonymously publish an anti-Lsos library that works enough to outperform competing anti-Lsos libraries, while making it not reliable and not trustworthy enough to discourage larger companies from using an anti-Lsos library. - Add license clause to MIT-license. We actually did developed a license clause that enforces larger companies to pay while preserving open source values. In general, we prefer not using copyright law because many developers don't understand how copyright works and many are afraid of using unknown licensing. That said, for some projects it can make sense to use copyright law. Does that make your more confident that the Lsos is a tangible alternative to merely hoping companies to donate? Thanks for your feedback, I updated our FAQ.