[tajen]

> which goes contrary to the ethics of Free software.

No it doesn’t. Free software doesn’t have to be free: Even on the GPL page it’s written that it’s even ok to sell free software. It’s only unethical if you equate OSS to software communism, but that’s another topic.

So anything that encourages the user to either use the freemium, then either dive into the code or either pay, is ethically correct. After all, you can download their AGPL, knock the limit, and redistribute. At which point you’ll be a contributor and while you’re at it, you’ll probably make a few other improvements: it means effectively free for contributors, which is awesome. See, it articulates quite well gratis, contributors and funding.

It’s only designed to make enterprises pay, which is good because they can “donate” huge sums for good software, so it funds the open-source community quite well. And it retains the qualities of OSS: You know what you install, you’re not tied to the editor if he dies, and if they stop improving the software, a contributor can take over their code and become more famous. Win-win-win.