If I want to make full, useful, GPL programs would it be a bad

>>60928388
Read the image you posted. If you want to be lazy and just sit back and charge fees for copies of something, yeah, the GPL makes that pretty much unviable. You have to actually provide some kind of ongoing value.

>>60928388
Yes, you can sell your program. You sell the compiled, the binaries. All you have to do is provide the source.

Make room to offer tech support and charge a good chunk, that is where the money is.

>>60928453
I don't want to make software that's complicated or crippled. No one would want to use it, thus no one buys it.

Support would be at most: priority fixing bugs, access to documentation, feature requests, etc.

Big companies have more resources, more marketing, so they can buy the software for a small fraction of initial costs. (e.g., $1 million to make the product, and they can buy it for $1,000) They would have to follow GPL requirements, too.

The pro from this is that no one has a monopoly over the program.

The con is investing lots of money and time into something, and not break even on it or profit.