[TimJYoung]

Nobody is going to use software for anything critical that doesn't have someone "waiting around" to fix any bugs that appear, even if they are several years down the line from the original release (and yes, this happens a lot). So, what you call "rent" is, in actuality, the cost of keeping the lights on and the original developers around so that such long-term support can be provided. And yes, these same developers can and do provide new features (which can also introduce new bugs, thus restarting the clock) during that same time.

This isn't to say that software companies don't exist that just milk the hell out of their customer base. But, that's a problem with any industry, not just software, and is an economic phenomenon, not something intrinsically bad about proprietary software. Typically, it's a problem with a lack of competition and the ability of incumbents to erect artificial barriers to such competition.

[seba_dos1]

> Nobody is going to use software for anything critical that doesn't have someone "waiting around" to fix any bugs that appear

This is exactly why you're often able to make money and sustain yourself out of free software.

[TimJYoung]

Most companies do not want to deal with the hassle of finding someone to perform support/bug fix work on their software. They want to be able to call up a vendor and get an answer today about a bug fix or support. Most open source projects do not have this level of support.

[seba_dos1]

...and those that do are often making money out of it.

[pjmlp]

Not really, because there are thousand others that can out offer you.

[icebraining]

That's also a selling point, though, especially if you're a small company. Knowing that they weren't locked in to us, and therefore helpless if we closed or pivoted, helped sell our services many times.