Perhaps at https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/market-research/history/software or at https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/about/existing-mechanisms
Example: Ardour is FLO but uses a paywall for binaries despite it being perfectly fine to share the product out in the world.
Example: Blender is 100% FLO without compromise and puts out FLO assets (files / moves / resources), but the assets are behind a subscription paywall despite being FLO licensed (noting also that third-party proprietary assets are common and there might be some tie-in to the core ecosystem)
In other cases, there's not even a paywall but just the implication of one. Core issue: spreading the idea that paywalls make sense, that pay-for-access should be (or at least is) normal. But it's not actually a true wall, except it's not presented as a voluntary "suggested" donation either, it's presented flat-out as a price.
Question is not only whether this is effective at getting funding but whether it limits adoption. It's possible it actually increases adoption in the cases of people discounting the value of anything donation-based or otherwise gratis, but it's likely that this turns away many potential folks who would have given things a try if not for the apparent barriers.
Make sure our market research or discussion references this
Related are split-resources style of open-core for whole projects:
Example: Musescore has 100% FLO desktop app but it is tied in with proprietary web and mobile apps and proprietary add-ons store
Perhaps at https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/market-research/history/software or at https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/about/existing-mechanisms
Example: Ardour is FLO but uses a paywall for binaries despite it being perfectly fine to share the product out in the world.
Example: Blender is 100% FLO without compromise *and* puts out FLO assets (files / moves / resources), but the assets are behind a subscription paywall despite being FLO licensed (noting also that third-party proprietary assets are common and there might be some tie-in to the core ecosystem)
In other cases, there's not even a paywall but just the implication of one. Core issue: spreading the idea that paywalls make sense, that pay-for-access should be (or at least is) normal. But it's not actually a true wall, except it's not presented as a *voluntary* "suggested" donation either, it's presented flat-out as a price.
Question is not only whether this is effective at getting funding but whether it limits adoption. It's *possible* it actually increases adoption in the cases of people discounting the value of anything donation-based or otherwise gratis, but it's likely that this turns away many potential folks who would have given things a try if not for the apparent barriers.
Make sure our market research or discussion references this
Related are split-resources style of open-core for whole projects:
Example: Musescore has 100% FLO desktop app but it is tied in with proprietary web and mobile apps and proprietary add-ons store