My point was this: presumably, Spearchucker wanted this software because it was useful to him, not just because it might be useful to someone else. Getting it

My point was this: presumably, Spearchucker wanted this software because it was useful to him, not just because it might be useful to someone else. Getting it had a cost: the time and effort to develop it. He could either take on that whole cost himself up front, and try to recover it from other users when the program was finished, or he could share the cost with other users starting from an earlier stage by starting an open source project. If you're primarily concerned with having the program completed, why take the first path? The second path seems like it will bring you to that goal more quickly and for less time, effort, and risk. It just makes more sense. And even if you're primarily concerned with making money, the second path can still make more sense. Using funding mechanisms like Kickstarter, you can be paid to write software that you release under an open source license -- and since your backers commit to payment up front, before you write the code, you don't have to take on the risk that no one buys a license for the completed program. So again, why go the other route?