This is just more license proliferation and a solution to a nonexistent problem. Releasing software under a license like the GPL doesn't somehow prevent you from making money from it. See Ardour - GPLv2, paid binaries.
One example of a project working with existing licenses doesn't mean that there isn't a problem. And they don't claim that it entirely "prevent[s] you from making money from it". (Although I'm not convinced this license is a good solution, need to take a deeper look)
That's just semantics. Sure, nothing in the license says you can't make money, but the basic rules of capitalism say you won't. Every single model I've heard of is unsustainable because of the cost of development puts the developer at a permanent disadvantage.
A "repackager" can charge less than the developer while also having much higher margins. Lower price leads to more market share, which brings more total revenue. In addition, these companies now have more to spend on advertising etc., bringing in even more money, none of which ever has to go to the original devs.
This is simply unavoidable and the only reason we don't see it more often is that most of us with the required skills have morals telling us to not do that and those who don't have much better ways of getting money without creating value.
Super! My understand is that Krita's distribution through app stores has a similar flavor - it's pure GPL, no tricks, but people pay for the convenience and assurance of downloading the official version of the app.
My personal feeling is that as PC's become more locked down and less under user control, paying for the digitally signed version might increasingly become a viable business model. Trademarks and TOS enforcement might be a more effective moat against being undercut than copyrights and licenses.
