MIT license + a standard rate.

Something like " If you require customizations or enhancements we bill at 1000$ an hour, 8 hour minimum."

I don't particularly care if someone working at Microsoft or whatever sees my open source project and decides to use it. That's fantastic. But I'm absolutely not going to work for Microsoft for free, so they need something for one of their use cases they need to pay up.

▲

bitwize 2 days ago | parent [-]

This is pretty much what Richard Stallman did. He acted as a consultant on GCC for organizations/businesses and charged $250/hr in 1990s dollars for the privilege of his time and expertise. If Mr. Free Software himself put a monetary price on his brainpower, why don't you?

▲

robocat 2 days ago | parent [-]

Your implication is that RMS was spending that money on himself for luxuries.

Are you sure the money wasn't being charged by his foundations (or given indirectly - e.g. used for his living expenses)?

Hard to know what his intentions were unless there's a link to something where he explains himself e.g. he could easily just be valuing opportunity costs.

	▲	bitwize 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I didn't specify or imply what he spent the money on, only that he demanded compensation for his time and energy, and at quite a hefty (well-deserved) price. Whether he did that as himself or under GNU Project or FSF auspices is also immaterial for purposes of this discussion. People both for and against open source seem to believe there's an implication that developers' time is free as well, and I'm just showing that the most dogmatic advocate for free software of all believed otherwise and put those beliefs into action.