I disagree that it's distasteful. It's only distasteful if it's dishonest or coercive. I think it's actually a great way to fund a Free Software project. It'

I disagree that it's distasteful. It's only distasteful if it's dishonest or coercive. I think it's actually a great way to fund a Free Software project. It's like github. You pay nothing, and everything is public. You pay for privacy. With the GPL and selling exceptions, it's very similar in spirit. You pay nothing, and you must give back. You pay something, and you may restrict your users. If someone contributes code and licenses their copyright to LightTable, knowing full well that the product they support and invested time in may acquire some funds because of it, gosh, I just don't see how that's a bad thing. And if they believe that their patch is significant enough to demand reimbursement, that they would like to charge LightTable for a copyright license, they are free to negotiate such a trade. And if LightTable actually makes money from relicensing, they'll probably be happy to pay for such things. I do, however, hope that they ask for copyright licenses rather than copyright assignment. Copyright assignment turns the author into a person powerless to use their own work. See harmonyagreements.org.