It saved us continuing our evaluation of it when our sales contact told us. Our company has a strict nope on basic infra licenses; closed is not an option. We need to be able to switch (and test everything all the time on the open version if we use binaries). We have been building software for over 35 years now and we have been bitten too many times.
Yes, but that's not an option for our lawyers; we need the actual freedom to do whatever. Source available is not a thing for us; it's not about the source (we will probably not ever touch it anyway), it is about the freedom when they go out of business, change the rules , etc. But I am not a lawyer but I do agree: we gladly pay licenses and support but if things go crazy (upping the prices to stupid amounts etc) we need to be able to get out without many issues.
As said in the comment, we pay for support and hosting for the open products that we use and we sponsor on github. % of rev is a good question; I will find that out. What is a good % you would say?
“Source available” is not Open Source. Some orgs reportedly have access to Windows source code, but that doesn’t mean they’re building and deploying their own version.
