Many people already make a living working on Open Source, for a wide variety of companies. This project, however, doesn't help people make a living via Open Source; it encourages people to release code under a proprietary license with source code available.
I totally agree with the philosophical argument around OSS --but at the end of the day, people need to eat. If you're going to argue that we should all OSS our code, you need to specify a way to make it sustainable (see http://www.fordfoundation.org/library/reports-and-studies/ro... for more on the unsustainability).
I've seen that report; I don't think I'd characterize its description as "unsustainable" so much as "needs further attention".
- License it under a copyleft license. Works the same as what you describe, except s/commercial/proprietary/, and is completely compatible with the FOSS ecosystem. You get paid by any company (or individual) who wants to ship proprietary software built on your code.
- Work for a company that gains revenue by releasing the code, and pays you accordingly. For instance, a company that sells more hardware because of the code.
- As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, charge for compiled binaries, for the convenience of non-developers.
- Provide a paid service based on the code.
- Require payment up front before releasing the software (crowdfunding model). Only works before you write/release the software, and benefits from an established reputation.
I've thought about licensing issues, as I have software I'd like to release when it's ready, but I also would like to be paid for it by anyone who uses it to generate revenue for themselves.
Up until the early 1980s, system software development was paid for by various computer manufacturers, as it could only run on their machines. As a result of generic hardware and open-source software, hardly any similar work exists today.