I suspect this overestimates the value of raw code. Anyone can use an LLM to reskin a project but they can't use it to replicate the trust that's built over time. The moment someone forks the code, they inherit a massive maintenance burden. They have to manually verify every change or risk shipping broken garbage. Most professionals will gladly pay a premium for a signed binary from a trusted maintainer rather than risk their workflow on a cut rate clone.

The real moat is not the source itself but the reputation. Setting the right price point is the actual challenge. You have to find that sweet spot where the price is high enough to fund development but low enough that the friction of paying is less than the friction of cloning the repo and building it yourself. If you price it like a corporate seat then people will fork it out of spite. The goal is to make the official binary the path of least resistance.