>> Community-owned. It also has negative connotations in the corporate sphere.
>
> I think I don't like your friends.
It would be interesting to do a survey of "suits" to see in what
percentage of companies this is the case.
I have spoken with upper management at more than one large company, all of
whom said (though not in so many words) that the primary reason they
(spend the tens-hundreds of K/year to) buy support is not because their
own folks lack expertise, but because they want a "neck to strangle" (i.e.
an entity on which to displace responsibility).
Almost invariably, such management is allergic (i.e. has violent reactions
to) the term 'community', and upon discovering the use of 'community'
software in their enterprises start looking for a support contract to buy
(i.e. CentOS -> RedHat, PostgreSQL -> EnterpriseDB) -OR- alternative
supported products that they already license (i.e. PostgreSQL ->
MS-SQL-Server). Lower-level workers who want to integrate open source
products into their ecosystems have better luck when they suggest those
supported alternatives.
I wish I was just being silly with this dialogue, but this has been my
experience with corporate IT.
-JK