I admire your optimism, but I just can't share it. That licensing rant ends with the line "And it will only cost $30 per seat." (for and education-specific ver

I admire your optimism, but I just can't share it. That licensing rant ends with the line "And it will only cost $30 per seat." (for and education-specific version) while also specifying a plan that would prohibit distribution either by or to education institutions. I really don't have a problem with commercial software. But schemes like this, trying to get the best of both worlds and in the process undermining the meaning of Free Software always strike me as both destructive and pathetic. It's not even that hard to properly execute a dual-licensing scheme: they could license the code under GPL, which would make it hard to impossible for others to commercialise. Then, they could offer a commercial license to educational institutions, and would be the only ones allowed to charge for such a version. But the tone of that blog post makes me think there's more that's wrong with this project than just their licensing.