What is the general feeling about non-gpl software for Linux?
I reckon it's perfectly OK to pay for software: writers need their bread. (IMHO the "free" in "Free software" means free as in speech rather than free as in beer, although in the case of CC-type software I'm very happy for it to be closed-source and commercial, so long as it runs under KDE). What is less OK is for software suppliers to subsequently hold their customers over a barrel. Or, indeed, to grossly overcharge. You are allowed a yacht or two and a luxury retirement home in the Bahamas, but funds for three million yachts is bit much.
Our business model is we sell software (and CNC machines) then provide free tech support, sometimes for decades.
That does seem to be an unsustainable model - certainly in the long term.
Changing to free software and expensive support would seriously upset our established customers.
You need a middle way. But I agree, support is a thorny issue. Schools in trouble need it immediately. It's usually their fault and obvious to you on the spot, but difficult to diagnose remotely. And since all expenditure needs to be authorised the previous year after three quotes have been compared, it's difficult to get funds for emergency support! And since good software doesn't go wrong, it's difficult to justify paying in advance for support that ought not to be needed. Everyone's experimenting with different software provision models and maybe no-one knows the right answer, but it does anyway change with time and the nature of the software. The open model follows the way science and has developed over the last four centuries: the sharing of information for the common good. Philosophically, we like that, but philosophy does not pay the mortgage. -- Christopher Dawkins, Felsted School, Dunmow, Essex CM6 3JG 01371-822698, mobile 07816 821659 cchd@felsted.essex.sch.uk