"Question: Is that what Stallman intended to accomplish with the GPL? Pay a fee for GPL source code and bypass the GPL? (I apologize for my ignorance here.)"
I've often thought that this was a pretty ideal way of licensing OSS.
It provides a revenue stream for improving upon open source from those with the deepest pockets and the greatest ability to pay which clearly works (QT, for instance, probably wouldn't exist without this model).
Moreover, it doesn't remove others' freedom to be able to develop free software from it.
It's telling that the biggest whinges about the GPL often come from large (often abusive) corporations with deep pockets, an inflated sense of entitlement, paranoia about "their" intellectual property and a desire to get freebies from ordinary developers.
I've often thought that this was a pretty ideal way of licensing OSS.
It provides a revenue stream for improving upon open source from those with the deepest pockets and the greatest ability to pay which clearly works (QT, for instance, probably wouldn't exist without this model).
Moreover, it doesn't remove others' freedom to be able to develop free software from it.
It's telling that the biggest whinges about the GPL often come from large (often abusive) corporations with deep pockets, an inflated sense of entitlement, paranoia about "their" intellectual property and a desire to get freebies from ordinary developers.