The problem with that is it breaks the value signalling we get from paying for things. With commercial software, it only gets developed and supported if customers pay for it, proving that it has value to them. How do we know this as against that open source project is worth funding? How do we tell how many users it has, and what value it provides to them?
Suppose we already have an open source project developing a snazwozzler, now somebody else develops a new kind of snazwozzler software with a better UI and more scalable architecture but missing some features the new developer doesn’t think are necessary. How do we tell whether to allocate resources to the old project or this new one? Customers can tell you this in a way that users can’t.
> only gets developed and supported if customers pay for it
Not exactly. A feature gets developed if it brings in more money from customers, but not always because the customers are happy to pay.
Consider putting ads to the software.
Consider turning software to a subscription service.
Consider preventing other software from interoperating with yours without a license, or at all, and locking users down on your platform.
I agree that when a user votes with their money, it is a great incentive. But the way it currently works with commercial
software is a bit far from a meritocratic ideal. Other mechanisms are possible (see sponsorship, Kickstarter, bounties), and I hope they will grow in popularity.
Suppose we already have an open source project developing a snazwozzler, now somebody else develops a new kind of snazwozzler software with a better UI and more scalable architecture but missing some features the new developer doesn’t think are necessary. How do we tell whether to allocate resources to the old project or this new one? Customers can tell you this in a way that users can’t.