I feel like we already have a battle-tested answer to that question - which is dual licensing. It worked great on software like Qt - just have an open source GPL(ish) licensed version for free as in speech users, and a proprietary do-whatever-you-want for cash money, so that developers can keep the lights on.
What needs to change is the open-source community's perception of this coexistence as something mutually beneficial as opposed to betraying their own principles.
This hostility manifests in two ways - one is the belief that not fully open software is somehow evil, and shouldn't be supported, and one should always use (often janky) alternatives that are fully open. The second is the constant churn without any thought given to API or ABI compatibility (never mind making the same binary run across versions, even source-level breakage is extremely common), leading to people wishing to ship commercial applications having to package half of the userland with them.
What needs to change is the open-source community's perception of this coexistence as something mutually beneficial as opposed to betraying their own principles.
This hostility manifests in two ways - one is the belief that not fully open software is somehow evil, and shouldn't be supported, and one should always use (often janky) alternatives that are fully open. The second is the constant churn without any thought given to API or ABI compatibility (never mind making the same binary run across versions, even source-level breakage is extremely common), leading to people wishing to ship commercial applications having to package half of the userland with them.