[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [board-discuss] Personal Edition label and define is wrong.


Hi Peter, Michael,

Michael Meeks wrote:
> > Only from ecosystem members this means if this equals must pay someone
> > to get this version lot of my deployments in different businesses of
> > Libreoffice would never have happened. Yes I can see those wanting
> > to make the "LibreOffice Enterprise" wanting as many paying customers
> > as possible.
>
> It seem you deploy LibreOffice in lots of businesses; I'm interested in
> your experience of the economics of that.
>
Me too - as my experience is indeed, it tends to be hard to convince
enterprises later on, that FLOSS does not mean zero-cost - if your
entry is via the gratis door.

What would be missing - as a value-proposition, or via TDF marketing -
to make it compelling for enterprises not to deploy LibreOffice
without support?

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Follow-Ups:
Re: [board-discuss] Personal Edition label and define is wrong.Bjoern Michaelsen <bjoern.michaelsen@libreoffice.org>
References:
[board-discuss] Personal Edition label and define is wrong.Peter Dolding <oiaohm@gmail.com>
Re: [board-discuss] Personal Edition label and define is wrong.Michael Meeks <michael.meeks@collabora.com>
Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.