That's how I understand it, yes. (It is also my understanding that at some point, you pay for MS support.)
You pay $X for a copy of Windows 2003 Server. After that is paid, you don't have to pay a dime for support if you don't want to.
I can't comment on products like SQL server or whatnot, but my understanding is that if you buy a copy of MS software, you're not obligated to pay for support if you don't want.
Except that once a program is released as FOSS, there could end up being many more people working on the program than in a funded company. At least, that's what I read. I've never worked in either, so I can't say from personal experience.
Okay, but the point I was making is that it's easier and faster to develop when you're funded rather than when you're a hobbyist working on a project in your off-hours. But the only way products will get funded is if there is a decent enough revenue model. By making a nice, friendly easy to use FOSS product (which requires a lot of time and effort) you make it less and less likely to be able to charge for support.
What I have seen companies to is release FOSS code, but have a "commercial" version that has better features. That is a good way to help bring in income. At the same time, however, you have two products that you have to spend money to develop, and one competes against the other.
How many Fedora Core servers are in production vs. RHEL?
Sort of like pirated Windows, I guess. :)
And that proves my point. MS has gone gung-ho to cut piracy down by Product Activation. So obviously product sales is a major factor in their income. Otherwise they could just say "well, we'll make it up in support charges."
