[jdlshore]

If you care that much, you can donate money to Arch to buy a commercial license, or inform your sales rep that you find their conduct unprofessional.

Or, yes, you can take the presence of the free version as a sign that the professional service is freeloading, and take your business elsewhere.

[ssl-3]

I see.

I take this to mean that we have some kind of (perhaps-fundamental) difference in the ways in which we understand how free software works.

(That's OK, comrade. I'm not here to change you.)

[jdlshore]

I suspect we do. In my view, people using free software take the gift they were given as-is, and if they don’t like it, they either contribute in a way the giver appreciates, or move on. They certainly don’t whine about their free gift online, and especially don’t complain that their free gift isn’t professional enough for them.

[ssl-3]

So no bug reports. No wishing that things could be improved in any way.

All users all must take what they are given. If they do not like what they are given, then they must only contribute in the ways that are prescribed from on-high. No freeloading. No complaining. No discussion, even in the form of a comment on a completely separate, independent forum. If they are unwilling or unable to follow these rules, then they must pound sand.

Am I on the right track here with the intended restraint?

[johneth]

Yes, they have no obligations to you, just as you have no obligations to them (beyond whatever licenses apply to their content).

[ssl-3]

Indeed. They owe me nothing, and I owe them nothing.

We are all free to have a slice of the infinitely-divisible cake, and also to talk about it when that behooves us. We can say positive things when it suits us, but we can also say whatever else we wish to as well.