I feel like a lot of the comments in this thread are conflating permissively licensed software with closed source software. If you want to write software and k

I feel like a lot of the comments in this thread are conflating permissively licensed software with closed source software. If you want to write software and keep it closed so you can make money off it I don't necessarily love the idea but I can respect it. But we're not talking about closed source here, just the difference between the GPL and permissive licenses like BSD, MIT, etc. I don't see how creating a killer app and releasing it permissively guarantees a developer an income. The opposite is the obvious effect. On the other hand using the GPL as your public license and negotiating a private license with a company like QT does seems like a logical way to provide user freedom, enjoy feedback and improvements from the community and still allow for a revenue stream. It's definitely a tired argument at this point so I was actually pretty happy when the author went out of his way to reiterate at the end of the article that there are benefits to both approaches, why can't we all just get along...