Well, they like to play with terms. Regardless of terms there are two kinds of people, those who try to make money out of OS and those who understand the deeper ideology in open source programming.
I sense a disturbance in the force, like millions of blender heads looked at the price of retopoflow $71.90 and said ‘damn that shit is expensive’.
Look this stuff ‘a is nice to have not a must have’ so if you can’t afford it maybe learn to live without it.
I disagree. There are indeed two types of people out there - those that understand the actual ideology of open source programming and those that like to confuse their desire for free stuff with open source ideology.
When the people that created the open source movement disagree with you Krice, when the leaders in the movement (both today and in the past) disagree with you, and finally when the programmers writing the open source software disagree with you AND act contrary to your desires (including Ton)… perhaps it’s time to consider that you personal opinion isn’t reflecting the actual ideology behind open source.
Interesting topic. My thoughts:
I think that currently Blender is in a state where there are too many addons and some of them are adding functionality that should definitely be in the Blender master, for example the Bake tool or GroupPro (both excelent addons). Both of them have their (minor) glitches because they are just addons and not propperly integrated. But I don’t think they will ever be integrated in master because it would fedup both the addon developers and paying users - the first one loosing money for their work, the second loosing the better support they got.
I think that paid addons are perfectly fine and there are many great addons that would probably never exist without the payments. I only fear that in future you will need too many addons to enable very basic features and honestly - keeping track of all the addons and installing them is a bit PITA allready.
The ideology of open source and free programs is bigger than just finding out there is a new type of market sector. It’s about trying to create more equality in this world by giving access to computer programs and source code to everone. In that OS movement failed and was stolen by those who now are using it in their marketing scheme. How insolent is that, the nerve these people have. The failure was even worse when you think how commercial it has become. Another failure was not being able to attract enough talented people to design and program good alternatives to commercial programs. I believe the reason for that is in programming and the way these projects are maintained, making them difficult to use, regardless of superficial open source status. However that one can change in near future when programming technology becomes better.
And if you start to need a couple of expensive addons to have good functionality, people would have to consider whether they should use Blender or another cheap alternative.
OpenSource does not involve issues related to ideology. Free Software involves ideology issues. Anyway this is what they say about selling free software:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html
Ideology of any stripe rarely survives contact with the real world. It’s always good to strive for the ideal but don’t rely on it.
I really hope we live in a world soon, that if you make something people love,
they want to help you continue your work,
so even if the thing you made gets trunked, there is always another thing you can be making.
Something like Patreon
because patreon and similar services are perfect
trust me
The fans love the product, not you
meaning that if you fail to deliver even within a few days,
you’re out
That is a problem with society currently,
we need to fix the disconnect.
Coorperations are not serving you your good,
Technicians are and other people,
I wish programers got the recognition in society they deserved.
Computer science is rocket science,
I wish we could have a nice big page of people working on blender topics, and their past projects, add ons, and merged to master patches, and proposals vs successful campaigns,
heck maybe even blender studios and indie projects in another page. Blender Kicker.
I would give specific developers like a dollar a month some people could give more for sure.
(imagine if all of us did that each month)
You are ignoring the facts. The founders of both the open source & free software movement have no problems with, and actively encourage, people selling the code they distribute under an open-source license. It’s not that the movement failed and then people started selling software they release under OS/FS licenses - that was the intention all along.
The open source ideology has nothing to do with the cost of the initial distribution. It has to do with openness of the delivered code and the freedom to change it and pass it along to others. Which is exactly what is happening in Blender (initial GPL distribution cost = €100K) and exactly what is happening in Blender Marketplace. The freedom to alter and distribute the code, as per the open source ideology, exists in both distributions.
Simple way to gauge whether your personal ideology is in line with the open source one - read the licenses. When you can find the line that prevents people from selling their software, let us know. You could always read the Free Software FAQ too, but we both know it is fine & dandy with software sales, so long as the GPL is followed in regards to the distribution of the sold software.
Open Software is not about working for free, working for donations, or refusing to sell one’s work. It’s about how open the software is that you deliver/distribute. It’s in the name. 
And this thread is slowly moving into paranoia and conspiracies.
Do you really think Ton is going to let the Blender Market dictate the feature set that comes with Blender out of the box (with his strong stance on promoting FOSS in general)? I think a lot of the developers will eventually just go ahead and create similar tools coded in C despite someone making revenue selling an addon version (because again, they will not allow people to hold permanent monopolies on features and tools).
For many addon developers, asking for donations simply doesn’t provide enough in the way of financial security to allow them to take time off of real work for development and support (especially for the more ambitious tools).
I know, but everything is based on some ideology. People who try to make money out of everything surely follow their own ideology.
Those “founders” were actually people who took the original ideology out from university/research world to so called real world and made it a viable commercial option. People like Richard Stallman who is a great example of a self-made guru, and by that I don’t mean a real guru, but someone who can play one and get rich.
At this point you are simply speaking about things you either don’t know about or are aware of but wish to ignore.
Open source ideology came out of projects being sold for a profit by the universities & research world. It started as a means of keeping open software sold for real world dollars. You keep spouting off claims about how open source started about the ideology of free software which got corrupted by the market. The thing is the actual history of the movement show it being the other way around. It was about letting people alter the software they were sold long before the idea of others getting it for free was even a consideration.
For the sake of fair discussion, and for those that may not be as familiar with OS history, citations would be appropriate.
OK, let’s go back to the first known instance of “free and open-source software” - the A-2 system developed at the UNIVAC division of Remington Rand in 1953. A-2 was released to customers with the source code and they invited to send their improvements back to UNIVAC. Ten years later, IBM is doing the same thing for ACP.
Remember, in the beginning, software wasn’t sold by itself - it was part of a package computer manufacturers provided with their hardware. Unlike today where one can purchase hardware from anywhere, back in the 1960’s & 1970’s, computer hardware was big ticket items purchased by big ticket companies and those universities that could afford it.
Software source code back then was shared because of compatibility, porting, and security requirements - not because of an “everything free for everyone” ideology that Krice seems to believe it developed from.
This statement becomes a little funny coming from you and seeing some of the titles of your started threads 
Anyway maybe you’re right and I’m exaggerating a little. Just that I seen for example some users considering Topogun or even softwares like 3DCoat.
But to be honest I do not know what Ton thinks or what he will let it happen, as apparently you know. And perhaps even Ton give a damn the fact that people could choose other softwares (I mean, maybe it’s not a worry for him and he does not base the development of blender considering these issues)
This makes zero sense to me…
Neither of us knows what Ton will do, but Campbell has spoken on the issue and has mentioned that he isn’t looking at the Blender Market for not to work on. Is that a senior enough developer for you or do you need Ton specifically?