Add use of paywalls within FLO to funding notes
Core point: Ardour is FLO but uses a paywall despite it being perfectly fine to share the product out in the world.
In other cases, there's not even a paywall but just the implication of one. Core issue: spreading the idea that paywalls make sense, that pay-for-access should be (or at least is) normal. But it's not actually a true wall, except it's not presented as a voluntary "suggested" donation either, it's presented flat-out as a price.
Question is not only whether this is effective at getting funding but whether it limits adoption. It's possible it actually increases adoption in the cases of people discounting the value of anything donation-based or otherwise gratis, but it's likely that this turns away many potential folks who would have given things a try if not for the apparent barriers.
Make sure our market research or discussion references this