> The sponsorship seems to introduce a business model around what is FOSS, then it’s not FOSS anymore.

No major F/OSS license (MIT, (A)GPL, Apache) talks about money. You can sell the software, sell the support, and sell the source code (GPL requires bundling code with the software, not putting it everywhere).

When it comes to Free and Open Source Software, everybody talks about sustainability rightfully, and many people say "sell support, or priority support".

I think this is the right way and balance. Code is there, free. If you earn money from this, help us. If you use it personally, please enjoy.

RedHat does in a more heavy handed way, says "Pay to play", which works for them (because of the missing parts are filled with Rocky and Alma). Proxmox and Nextcloud does this, and says, "Pay if you need help from us".

IIRC, libpcsc requires a fee for "testing card readers for compliance". Library is GPLv3, on the other hand.

Many Free Software libraries get sponsorships to be able to survive. Even curl has a "bulletproof" version for enterprises which you can't download without paying.

"Free Software" doesn't mean "no charge", "open source" software doesn't mean you can take it, run with it, and drag the developers behind you as you please.

As a Free Software fan and advocate, I think Wix's balance is perfect. If you earn money, please help us. That's perfectly fine, and makes sense in their case.

Kudos for hitting the right balance. They got a "+1" from me.

> Even curl has a "bulletproof" version for enterprises which you can't download without paying.

What is the curl bulletproof version? I only see the free open-source license version: https://curl.se/docs/copyright.html