"I believe that most companies charging only for support are tempted to make the product harder to use to increase the need for support." I agree with this. Ma

"I believe that most companies charging only for support are tempted to make the product harder to use to increase the need for support." I agree with this. Many advocates of open source software continue to push the paid support option as a viable route for open source developers. But often the suggestion is made without thinking through the implications of such a proposal. And the idea of deliberately making a product complex or poorly documented in order to encourage paid support is inherently unattractive to any customer. For solo developers or small developer teams, I can't think of anything less appealing that having to focus on paid support as the benchmark for financial success for their business. A paid 'source available' option is one way to charge for the actual product and give your customers access to your source code (which can include provisions to modify the source code). This model may not be popular with open source advocates, but it provides a way for the developers to keep their focus on the product and on making it as easy as possible to use. In fact this model isn't new. There is a long history of developer tools sold, not as open source, but with the source code available for modification and incorporation in to other products.