Michael Kesper mkesper@schokokeks.org writes:
I think there often is the harm to tell people they need to buy licenses if they want to use the software "commercially" (it's the case here and it was for Qt) or if they need support.
This makes it look like Free Software could not be used commercially or for mission critical goals. I'd consider this a real threat as knowledge about Free Software still is pretty marginal in (higher levels of) enterprises.
I agree this is a harm they're perpetrating, likely on purpose since it probably makes some customers think they have no option to sell a work covered by the GPLv3 and thus more likely to pay for a non-free license.
Interestingly, this harm isn't one that was complained about by the negative article the OP pointed us to.
I prefer to think of the author as offering a free-software version of an otherwise closed product and so consider it a net benefit, but perhaps it makes an only-free version less worth developing.
You also divide you user base (and such your potential developers).
If some of them were intent on making non-free software, the base was already split; this does nothing to worsen that.