> And I think that [a commercial software ecosystem that favors software sellers over software buyers is] what angers people. It's certainly the impetus behind

> And I think that [a commercial software ecosystem that favors software sellers over software buyers is] what angers people. It's certainly the impetus behind Open Source. If I've correctly characterized your statement, I can't agree with it. RMS was originally motivated by his sudden inability to get access to the code for the driver for their computer lab's fancy laser printer to fix an embarrassingly bad bug that was wasting a bunch of other people's time. Many people prefer open source software because the guaranteed availability of source code helps to keep software that BigCos would no longer maintain (for whatever reason) alive, or dramatically improve software that companies can't be arsed to get right. [0] > So the fairly common business of selling a binary blob of functionality that ceases to legally be useful after the license expires falls down with GPL licensed software. Eh? AFAICT, the model still stands. If you've written everything in house, dual-license it. If you've not, and if you're writing software for BigCos, [1] put a clause in your support contract that stipulates that for the next X years, $CLIENT will upgrade to $LATEST_VERSION after $REASONABLE_TIME_PERIOD and will not use older versions, or else suffer termination of the support contract and monetary penalties. I mean, lots of people pay for (and keep upgrading) RHEL rather than use Centos or Scientific Linux. [0] Ferinstance, DD-WRT and OpenWRT have been really, really good for the state of home WiFi router security. [1] Which -frankly- is the only place I would expect to find such a license.