But that's incorrect, there are at least two goals: ensure that software development can continue, and provide users (whoever they may be) with some approximation of GNU's Four Freedoms (freedom to use, freedom to study, freedom to modify, freedom to distribute).
At least, those are the minimal two goals for anyone interested in FLOSS.
Open source is always part of a business strategy, typically even for individual tinkerers since they can use their own open source work/contributions as part of their portfolio and thus leverage it to get more and better contract work / jobs.
Just what I said in the GP: anyone interested in FLOSS
It may be the case that in 2024, lots of people "do open source" as part of a business strategy. But I can assure that it was not so in 1986 (when I first encountered the GNU project) and it wasn't that way in 1999 when I started working on Ardour.
Except we're not monolithic. We each have our reasons, and one person's rationale for open sourcing (and with what license) may vary by project and with time.
> It may be the case that in 2024, lots of people "do open source" as part of a business strategy. But I can assure that it was not so in 1986 [...]
Not explicitly, perhaps, but already in the 70s there was something of an understanding of mind-share. Building mind-share is easily (IMO) the most important reason to go open source for any given project, though there's others too.
There is tension between "free to distribute" (which implies you can get it without paying), as well as "free to modify" (which implies you can build it yourself from source) and "the need to ensure that development continues".
But it is only a tension, not a contradiction. Anyone can get Ardour without paying, yet it raises $200k+ per year to help ensure that development continues.
I wonder if it applies to the kind of software that is more complete like anything with a UI etc. If I get the final result the tests don't mean much to me.
In fact, what Bruce is proposing is a "source under glass" license. Look, but don't touch. Pay to play. Microsoft offers some companies access to the Microsoft Windows source under that kind of license. Is it open source? No.
Ewww. Why do that?
The company would surely be better off if the owners buy more yachts instead.
/s