Re: "Slapping a "Personal Edition" label on a product implies..."
Sorry, there are sentences like "Slapping a "Personal Edition" label on a product implies you can only use it for personal use, which would be against the license." which are utterly wrong.
"implies" doesn't mean an opinion - while "Personal edition" would be just a label, to which they're given a very restricted meaning (guilty conscience?). Otherwise, "Community edition" would mean you need to be at least in two to use it? Whatever matter is the actual license, don't believe users are stupid - the elitism among too many open source activists never helped it.
Probably not the best marketing choice, but should they have called it the "Volunteer edition, only supported by volunteers"? Would it improve enterprise adoption? Nope. LO could have used "Community edition", and someone would have promptly complained "they're going to remove functionalities!!!" even if it wasn't true.
They could use a new name, like RedHat/CentOS o Ansible Tower/AWX, would it help or confuse users even more?
Anyway, soon "Personal edition" may mean LO is being coded by a single person, if they can't find more developers, and those putting their efforts in coding the damned thing are thanked by saying "hey, shut up, and give me your code for free".
"made software calling itself LibreOffice but with restrictions." Which restrictions? A label in an about box is a restriction? It won't be legal to add any restriction the GPL forbids - all they can do is make builds with a subset of the code while still pointing you at the full source code.
If you don't like their builds look for another one or build yourself - and say thank you to those working on code that is made freely available to you.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
