I am sorry to say some of what you write is not correct.
Red Hat — I know they had their slice of controversies lately, but still — is a ≃33bn USD company, how is that not making money? They sell solutions based on OSS (different from selling software!), which is one viable way of making money.
Other ways are: selling support, selling licence exceptions (when you are the sole copyright holder of the codebase, MySQL did that), sponsored development for new features, SaaS (bad!), customization for big enterprises/public actors, open-sourcing software but keeping assets proprietary (some games do that), and many more.
Although the redhat is approximately valued at 33bn, but does RHEL is truly open source? Can you study, edit, modify the source code, the freedoms a user get when the software is licensed under GPL.
Selling support could only be posible for enterprise or is it actually possible for direct consumers, although that's possible. I think that would give a bad rep for the company? Is it?
Sponsored development is actually like a donation based model, where you can except new features when you donate some money.
Customization for big enterprises is actually a viable business model, only if it generates as much money as the company sustains and can continue to expand?
All of the other things you've mentioned goes against the principles of free and open source?
Correct me If I'm wrong!
Customization for big enterprises is actually a viable business model, only if it generates as much money as the company sustains and can continue to expand?
Yes, it is only a viable business model in the end if it generates enugh revenues to cover materials and labour, like every business on planet Earth.
I am sorry to say some of what you write is not correct.
Red Hat — I know they had their slice of controversies lately, but still — is a ≃33bn USD company, how is that not making money? They sell solutions based on OSS (different from selling software!), which is one viable way of making money.
Other ways are: selling support, selling licence exceptions (when you are the sole copyright holder of the codebase, MySQL did that), sponsored development for new features, SaaS (bad!), customization for big enterprises/public actors, open-sourcing software but keeping assets proprietary (some games do that), and many more.
Although the redhat is approximately valued at 33bn, but does RHEL is truly open source? Can you study, edit, modify the source code, the freedoms a user get when the software is licensed under GPL. Selling support could only be posible for enterprise or is it actually possible for direct consumers, although that's possible. I think that would give a bad rep for the company? Is it? Sponsored development is actually like a donation based model, where you can except new features when you donate some money. Customization for big enterprises is actually a viable business model, only if it generates as much money as the company sustains and can continue to expand? All of the other things you've mentioned goes against the principles of free and open source? Correct me If I'm wrong!
Yes, it is only a viable business model in the end if it generates enugh revenues to cover materials and labour, like every business on planet Earth.