One of the most perplexing examples of this is Virtualbox. Both the open source and proprietary versions are free as in beer . . . although a company is supposed to buy a license for deployment. It seems like that business model can't be much more profitable then just selling support for a full open source version. Perhaps the license require is intended to force large companies to pay for software they would otherwise support internally?
In general, I don't mind this arrangement much, as long the open source edition contains 90% of the features. It is far better than having a company not open source its products at all. Asa On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Rion D'Luz<[email protected]> wrote: > Zimbra comes to mind of a decent FOSS community app that's free and good 'nuf > for 90% > of their market, if you like tomcat and jsp. > > Rion > >
