The free software movement is about freeing *all* computer users (including
companies) through freeing *all* software. A free software core is a positive
contribution to the movement. Developing proprietary software is a negative
contribution to the movement. It subjugates the users that do no value their
freedoms. This software may include a free core, be a plugin to a free core,
be the "enterprise version" of a free "community edition" or tailor a few
customers. Those names do change anything to its unethical nature.
Now that it is clear to anybody that, in your text, "support" includes
"additional developments" and "non copyleft" means "proprietary", let me cite
your first post in this thread:
You can make money by developing a free software package but leave it pretty
bare bones (...). Non technical users are stuck. When that user needs help
installing or using it, you offer support under an "enterprise" edition where
you dual license the software under the GPL and a custom license so code is
no longer copyleft.
Although that I agree (and have always agreed) that the free software core is
a positive contribution, this business plan looks disgusting to me. It is
about attracting users with free software to then taking advantage of the
non-technical ones who are purposely "stuck" and invited to proprietary
software to merely be able to use the software.
What is even more disgusting is that you then pretend that the proprietary
software developer is not guilty; that the user (the victim) is to be blamed
because she should have refused the invitation and stick to the free core
(that she cannot use). Going that far justifies about any proprietary
software development: "Buy our nice user-subjugating software! It is ethical
because there exists this feature-lacking and unusable application as a free
software alternative."
