> However I must be able to use colors for free if all I'm doing is getting it for a non commercial project of mine. Nope. IMO it's safe (from the floss side)

> However I must be able to use colors for free if all I'm doing is getting it for a non commercial project of mine. Nope. IMO it's safe (from the floss side) to assume companies won't be cheating. Don't get me wrong. They will most definitely cheat. Maybe 95% of them will cheat. That should still make tangible revenues for FLOSS maintainers. (though IME most companies really do care about the licenses they use, and they don't mind paying, like I know actual companies who bought Qt licenses) In my understanding, the goal from the article is not really to force companies to pay for FOSS, but rather to simplify it. You could say that putting everything under AGPL forces them to pay. That's technically true, but really, it's more of a way for people who want to pay FOSS inside the company to push to actually pay FOSS. Donations from a company to a someone isn't really a thing an engineer can push down to the finance department. Don't get me wrong, with the same wording, there is a fine line between "companies are stealing from us, they need to give money back" and "we know companies would like to help us, but it's hard for them, so let's make it easier for them" which is very easy to cross. For the moment, FOSS financing has no plausible solution (nor incentives), assuming companies are lawful neutral. Even for lawful good companies it's pretty hard. So let's start by making systems to give those companies way to help FOSS, before thinking about potential cheaters.