is a server package which, like a bunch of other projects (notably ), make some of its source code available as a hobbled "open source edition", lacking features present in a "pro" version:

Companies who do this get neither the benefits of being fully proprietary (full asset value of "IP" on your books etc), nor the benefits of being fully (community goodwill, volunteer contributions etc). Why do they keep doing it? Probably for the same reason other projects are using proprietary licenses. Because think its a good idea.

@strypey ...and these companies need to pay the income of their employees, so they either take the venture capital or sell licenses. 🙂

Do you have an example for me, where a company of that size can operate by only producing free software?

Asking because I'm a huge fan of free sofware but also a software developer who likes to get paid. 😅

@winniehell I'm not sure what size Mistpark is, but what about , , or ? There's also companies like , which are technically support contractors not software creators, but they make a lot of upstream contributions to the software they use. Conversely, here's an example of a startup that failed to fund their team using a proprietary model and decided to free their code (although it didn't save their business):

@winniehell I've been curating a list on the Disintermedia wiki, but sadly the service that hosts us has been offline for a few weeks now. Here's an archived version from late last year:

Note there are a few things that need updating when I find a new wiki host (eg the status of BuckyBox).

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon - NZOSS

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!