Sure, both of these are normal and reasonable scenarios for software
project development and commercial product development. It does not
however have impact on either the quality of freeware, nor support,
nor the length of time a "product" remains on the market. There is
plenty of poor quality freeware out there, and there is plenty of poor
quality shareware, and "commercial" products. The same can be said by
substituting good for poor.

Interestingly the only "support problem reports" I ever hear about on
r.a.s. have to do with commercial products that people pay for.

Henryk Birecki

"tango4" wrote:

Even Linux is moving to a licenced platform for its latest
incarnations. I have seen a lot of software move this way lately. An
originally open source or free project matures to such an extent that
it demands more of the core programmers than can be done on a free
basis. The real contributors still have access to the source but the
'hangers on' get a real product at a reasonable cost and businesses
grow out of the supply and support of the products.

It's just an alternative business model. A programmer believes he can
do it better and to drive the development he offers his product for
free. The early adopters allow him to develop to a solid application
and then he can start charging.

Ian


"Henryk Birecki" wrote in message
.. .
Andy Blackburn wrote:

Actually, my (mis)infomation on non-commercial software
comes from extensive research in Open Source community
motivations and behaviors, including survey research
of several thousand Open Source developers. I think
facts normally trump opinions/anecdotes.


Well, that is actually rather pompous. What facts?

Henryk Birecki