In essence, the freedom "free as in freedom" means you are free to pay nothing, or pay it to the off-brand hosting company.
As you say, "I'm not a douchebag" implies there's some kind of karma involved; when MySQL "went Oracle," the free-as-in-freedom choice of the developers was to start MariaDB and many in the community interpreted this as the developers' way of saying "I'm not a douchebag."
Oracle kind of has a reputation.
So in essence, if someone pays me when they were free to pay the off-brand hosting company, then it is a strong positive signal. Companies that Oracle-lock their customers are trading long-term profitability for revenue this quarter, as their savvy customers will immediately begin looking elsewhere for a competitor.
Basically if I grant you, the user, the freedom not to pay me, I can trust the signal that those who do pay me want more of my product.
* My IT guy $200 per hour. If maintaining a technology takes a day a month -- which is wildly optimistic -- that's $1600 per month
* The organization which developed the tool e.g. $50-$200 per month
* A random outsourcing organization $10-$50 per month
By making your software free software, I will still pay you, but I know that:
1. If you do decide to spike prices, I can go to the off-brand company or to my IT guy. You better provide better service than the off-brand at lower prices than my IT guy.
2. If you do go out of business, I can go to my IT guy.
It's all about power dynamics. You don't have the option to f- me, and by having taken away that option, you've made it more likely I'll buy from you. It's often just simple good business.
Oracle's business model is largely about buying up companies with large locked-in entrenched bases, spiking prices while lowering costs, and milking cash cows as the cows gradually die. They did that to Java and a few others. Free software means I can't get Oracled too badly.
Some companies take a middle ground by e.g using open APIs. For example, AWS has services which have better price/performance than free software, but maintain compatibility. I'll be more likely to use those than proprietary alternatives because if AWS decided to Oracle me, I can switch to the free software version. There are systems like git, where essential business value is free software, so I can move my code out and around if Microsoft decides to oracle me, but where there is a significant proprietary value-add.
Your value to customer goes up with:
100% free > hybrid models > proprietary
Your barriers to competitors go the other way.
This isn't just signaling. It's power dynamics. Companies send out false signals all the time. This is a hard barrier.
The right business model depends on your market and technology. I've mostly done free software, and that's mostly a matter of choice -- I've picked businesses where 100% free makes business sense.
The signal I am receiving from your businesses is one that would make me only do business with you as a last resort, and then I would lock you in with contracts and spend a lot of time carefully studying everything.
In other words, I'm signalling that the power-dynamics players end up costing too much.
Fair enough. Fortunately, if you don't like me, you're welcome to take my code, and hire someone else to host it for you. There's a whole ecosystem of folks who will do that for you too, and quite a few of them are quite competent. Most of what I do is 100% pure free software.
I used to do business-on-a-handshake too. Nowadays, I don't try to "lock [customers] in with contracts," but I do "spend a lot of time carefully studying everything" to make sure things are guaranteed fair to both sides. I'd advise the same, but until you've been down that road once or twice, I suspect you're right that we might not get along. I was there too at one point.
The business-on-a-handshake crowd is a mixture of honest people and con artists. I was told by more seasoned mentors that good contracts make good partnerships, and now I believe that philosophy.
As you say, "I'm not a douchebag" implies there's some kind of karma involved; when MySQL "went Oracle," the free-as-in-freedom choice of the developers was to start MariaDB and many in the community interpreted this as the developers' way of saying "I'm not a douchebag."
Oracle kind of has a reputation.
So in essence, if someone pays me when they were free to pay the off-brand hosting company, then it is a strong positive signal. Companies that Oracle-lock their customers are trading long-term profitability for revenue this quarter, as their savvy customers will immediately begin looking elsewhere for a competitor.
Basically if I grant you, the user, the freedom not to pay me, I can trust the signal that those who do pay me want more of my product.
Economies are all about signalling.