Hacker News Reader

Isn't it weird that some companies are willing to pay for just the brand? Or - is it perceived as a form of corporate sponsorship?

View on HN

> Except for the actual binary of the MSI installer for Windows and client specific configuration files, all the software is available under the GNU GPL and other Open Source licenses.

They’re paying for a Windows installer. Building Windows code from source is not something most Windows users are capable of.

But can't you just build an MSI installer from sources, then distribute that to users? Like you can build .deb/.rpm or flatpak packages on Linux?

You can, but then you won't have any support and any integration stuff the commercial one might

Without the government certification, that's worthless if you need a certified solution. Hence, those companies will pay.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com