[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [board-discuss] Personal Edition label and define is wrong.
- Subject: Re: [board-discuss] Personal Edition label and define is wrong.
- From: Thorsten Behrens <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 10:53:54 +0200
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
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
Description: PGP signature
|Re: [board-discuss] Personal Edition label and define is wrong.||Bjoern Michaelsen <email@example.com>|
|[board-discuss] Personal Edition label and define is wrong.||Peter Dolding <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Re: [board-discuss] Personal Edition label and define is wrong.||Michael Meeks <email@example.com>|
- Prev by Date: [board-discuss] Drafting "Tender to finish transition of LibreOffice to ODF 1.3 (ODF 1.3 delta)"
- Next by Date: Re: [board-discuss] Drafting "Tender for implementing support for a dedicated, built-in UNO object,inspection tool (Xray-built-in debugger)"
- Previous by thread: Re: [board-discuss] Personal Edition label and define is wrong.
- Next by thread: Re: [board-discuss] Personal Edition label and define is wrong.