Counter to some fears about liability with a move like this, I am not convinced this will result in a negative outcome.
Businesses will pay big bucks to dump liability on someone else. And an author won't accept that liability for free.
I see an opportunity for authors or distributors of open source software to demand a fee for maintenance and shouldering some of some the liability for its use.
I see an opportunity for software professionals to vet the paid consumers of their libraries and, via consult, approve to take on the liability based on sound usage (charging fees to confirm sound usage).
I see an opportunity for a license that requires you, as the consumer, agree to take on all liability via signature if you aren't paying.
Is this not in the spirit of traditional open source? Maybe yes...
Or, maybe it is more like a source available model with as few strings attached as possible to get the story straight.
Maybe this is not a bad thing.
Personally? If the dynamics change so that I can realistically write software for a living independendent from a single company without begging for donations, I would more strongly consider doing so. Incentives here might allow for that.