On Apr 28,  1:43pm, Tom Achtenberg wrote:

> Free Software Movement seems more to have the attitude of "I
> shouldn't have to pay for anything" where shareware at least was
> "try it and if you like it pay for it." One has a chance of putting
> food on a programmers table and one does not.

For an excellent example of a successful company whose only product
is Free Software, see:

    http://www.sleepycat.com/

Sleepycat develops and licenses Berkeley DB (which comes with every
Linux distribution that I'm aware of).  As you may already know,
Berkeley DB is may be freely used in other Open Source software. 
I.e, you don't need to pay a licensing fee.  However, if you use it
in an application for which you don't wish to distribute the source
code, you must pay them for a license.

The advantage that Sleepycat has with their model that a shareware
outfit doesn't is that their licensee's can (and do) contribute bug
fixes back to Sleepycat.  This is usually not possible with shareware
since the source code isn't made available to the licensees.

Another example is Artifex Software Inc.  Artifex's web site is
here:

    http://www.artifex.com/index.htm

Artifex develops and distributes the Ghostscript program which provides
many users (including everyone who uses Linux) with the ability to
print PostScript documents.  Artifex's business model is similar to
Sleepycat's, but they've added the twist of only releasing their
very latest software under a license which requires that you pay for
the software.  After a certain period of time elapses, they release
the now older versions under the GPL.  Again, like Sleepycat, they
benefit from their licensee's (both GPL and otherwise) having copies
of the source code via bug fixes contributed back from the community.
Also, new drivers may be contributed by non-Artifex employees.  This
benefits both Artifex as well as the contributor.  Obviously, it benefits
Artifex because their product is better - it has a new driver that didn't
exist before.  But it benefits the contributor too because the contributor
will be able to use stock versions of Ghostscript and not have to maintain
his driver (independently) as Ghostscript improves.  The contributor also
benefits from having his driver improved by both Artifex and the rest of
the developer community.

Kevin