zlacker

>>gnufx+(OP)
I think the fundamental issue is that free software and open software are enablers but not products.

Free software and open software reducing your costs in making products that make money. Be they services (a la Google/Facebook), hardware, operating systems (a la Apple and Darwin), or books (a la OReilly), or consulting (a la IBM).

Open source itself doesn't make money.

So if you can open source and reduce your maintenance costs of something that is required for your product but not really a differentiator it is a win.

If you try to make money from open source itself, either you will fail, or else you will end up either de-facto abandoning open source, or else doing shady legal things to get around it (see the example of Red Hat/IBM in the article).

>>RcouF1+la
News to me. I've been making a living from a GPL'ed project since 2009. It currently generates about $240k/year.

>>PaulDa+Oa
I bet you are not really selling the product. You are probably selling support and consultancy.

Basically, you are consulting for the company to solve an issue, and the open source is an enabler.

And $240k/year is what they pay an individual contributor. You are basically being paid for your time and expertise and not really for your product.

>>RcouF1+fc
One look at OP's account would give you "ardour" as a hint to what product this might be. 5 minutes of scanning ardour's webpage would tell you that the "O'Rly? school of Open Source business" blueprint doesn't apply here.