You can always fork the project, put your own branding on it and make money off your contributions still :) It's just not possible to make money under their brand, or in a closed source product.
> You can always fork the project, put your own branding on it and make money off your contributions still :) It's just not possible to make money under their brand.
This doesn't sound right. You'd be forbidden from selling non-GPLv3 access to any of the existing code, even under a new brand, and any plugins that you created would either be GPLv3, or not distributable at all.
You can definitely sell GPLv3 software. As long as the source is available and you abide by the terms of the licence.
Yes sorry, I realised my omission and edited my post just before you commented. You are right that you wouldn't be able to sell your code under a different license than GPLv3, whilst the person you signed the copyright to would.
> But in a few years, we could imagine that the majority of contributions come donated for free from volunteers. Would it still be fair then?
I would hope that by that time, all significant contributions would be in the form of plugins, which are not required to be GPLv3 as far as I'm aware, or even require a sign away of copyright. The question would then be, do you want to sell your plugin through their system, or distribute it on your own.
Chris said in the thread that plugins would be "infected" by GPLv3: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/light-table-discussion...
Yes, because running a project, mentoring, moderation and releasing in an orderly fashion is far more work then most people expect.