He's not arguing about their right to license it how they please. He's arguing that someone ought to choose to do it another way.

You made up a position to argue against.

No, you’re arguing against the first part of my comment without reading the whole thing where I addressed the value proposition.

A 100K free device license is a generous gift to small companies. Past 100K, it’s more than fair to ask that companies contribute. That’s a significant operation at that point and the model has obviously provided value.

If the model doesn’t provide any value to a >100K device company then they should train their own or not use it.

I could see how people unfamiliar with per-device or per-unit licensing fees would be confused, but this is a common business model. Scaling payments with the customer’s business success is one of the more fair ways to align vendor and customer while also providing a nice way to give freely to smaller businesses like this.

It’s a good thing. It’s silly that a company giving away a license for 100K devices, which covers small and medium hardware operations, is being criticized for this of all things.