the software developer who developed the project as a passion project may start developing it full time and we get a good software which is open source!

agree, the software would be good if it’s not focused on making money! But it would be good and the software would innovate if it has a viable business model!

Wow, that’s great! That’s the idea behind libre software/hardware or the copyleft where you are encourage to fix bugs, develop new ideas and share it with the community! It’s great that you’ve you contributed to public domain! Is there copyleft for except softwares?

sure, these are examples where open source thrive. It’s great to see it be that way. But there are services which are open source, as good as their propreitory alternative but still didn’t have proper business model, rely on donations which is unstable. Even in the linux community, there are lot of distros that sustain through donations? If they have as much as money as microsoft, they may develop their distros and innovate. So, I’m asking for ideas, business models, solutions to these problems! Correct me, If I’m wrong!

1. I agree, the philosophy behind open source and free software are created or atleast have a part in it.
2. sure, most open source softwares aren’t written with that intention. But the problem is it would be nice if they have some money to keep on develop without abandoning the project, it would help them to innovate. Although open source companies are innovating, it would push to innovate even to greater extents.

a. a good one, but selling support could only be posible for enterprise or is it actually possible for direct consumers, although that’s possible. I think that would give a bad rep for the company? Is it? b. that would be good, but if the software is propreitory, the would still add up the value of their core business? c. a viable business model idea d&e. still the same problem with donations Correct me, If I’m wrong!

Although the redhat is approximately valued at 33bn, but does RHEL is truly open source? Can you study, edit, modify the source code, the freedoms a user get when the software is licensed under GPL. Selling support could only be posible for enterprise or is it actually possible for direct consumers, although that’s possible. I think that would give a bad rep for the company? Is it? Sponsored development is actually like a donation based model, where you can except new features when you donate some money. Customization for big enterprises is actually a viable business model, only if it generates as much money as the company sustains and can continue to expand? All of the other things you’ve mentioned goes against the principles of free and open source? Correct me If I’m wrong!

That;s a considerable against the problem behind it. So, what’s the reason for it? Why the average person doesn’t give a crap?

Great, but the companies aren’t as mainstream as their propreitory alternatives, what could be reason?

What are the mistakes done by those companies that’s resisting them to not as big as their propreitory alternatives?

A software using CC-BY-NC-4 is not a good option, as it was made for media. If skiff markets itself as open source, it should respect the guidelines of opensource( it’s open source(https://opensource.org/osd/), you can read the 6th rule. It says the software should not be limited for commercial use.)

Skiff licensed all of it’s apps it at CC-BY-NC-4, why not change it for GPL 3.0 to make it a real free and open source software that respects user’s freedom and mandates the fork to be free and open source. There’s a difference between free software, open source and source available!