> where nobody wants to be the first to keep their source closed and try to charge for it
Seems like there's another option -- open source your project and also charge for a license to use it. By open sourcing people will trust it more which will cause its value to go up. And then more people would be willing to pay for it.
> Seems like there's another option -- open source your project and also charge for a license to use it.
If you open source your project, unless you're using an unusual definition of open source, you've provided a free-of-charge, sublicensable license to use, modify, and distribute it. (Or, at least, a license that the licensee is free to sublicense without charging the sublicensee or paying an additional fee to you, so even if you are charging for the direct licenses, the more you sell the greater the probability that it will be available at no charge.)
You could open source it and charge a fee for professional support, however, which is a fairly common model.
As I understand it, that's what he did. He open sourced it and kept copyright on it. That would mean that everybody would be free to read it as posted but wouldn't be able to use it or distribute it without permission.
Releasing something under an open source license usually involves retaining copyright but is, itself, giving permission to use, distribute, modify, and distribute modifications. Pretty much every open source project either retains copyright of the work or is composed of the work of developers who each retain copyright of their portion of the work.
Seems like there's another option -- open source your project and also charge for a license to use it. By open sourcing people will trust it more which will cause its value to go up. And then more people would be willing to pay for it.