<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - UI: Branding: LibreOffice Personal edition" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=134486#c30">Comment # 30</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - UI: Branding: LibreOffice Personal edition" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=134486">bug 134486</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:julian@julianstirling.co.uk" title="Julian Stirling <julian@julianstirling.co.uk>"> Julian Stirling</a> <pre>Enterprise customers should be encouraged to pay for support, but this statement interferes with the fundamental freedoms of open source (even if only by implication rather than by license). There is no need to have a different "edition", to differentiate supported copies. You could have a tag line that says: "LibreOffice is developed by The Document Foundation, ecosystem partners, and numerous volunteers. This copy is community supported. For enterprise use we recommend buying support from a LibreOffice ecosystem partner." This makes it clear that the copy does not have the available paid support, but that it is the same copy and you have the right to use it. This doesn't stop other companies offering support, but it gives something clear for large enterprises to put in a tender documents so they are more buy from those who contribute to the source. Perhaps token based authentication could change the tag line to show that the version is supported by an ecosystem partner? Not sure if that is an awful idea. I know this idea is half baked, but that makes it 50% more baked than a statement claiming LO is "intended for personal use".</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>