1) Posting Prices.  Cincom, as a corporate entity, doesn't do that for
any product.  The company has been in business since 1968, and has been
continuously profitable over that period.  There are aspects of
corporate culture that can be changed, and others that are hard to
change.  This policy falls into the latter bucket

2) "Fairness" of pricing.  Well - the bottom line is, if we did what
people wanted, and gave the product away - the version you got for free
would be the last version you ever saw.  The engineering group isn't
free, and the only way to pay them is to charge for the product.

3) Following from (2) come questions about the way we price.  Simply
put, the model people say they want - one time developer licenses,
followed by unlimited use - has been tried.  You'll note that ParcPlace
(and descendents) went broke using that model.  You'll also note that
Borland has been driven pretty close to bankruptcy on that model.  The
sad fact is, that model just doesn't work.  Using it leads to either

-- tiny engineering groups who's job is to simply maintain the product
-- death of the product and/or the company selling that way

4) Following from (3), I get asked "well, what about open sourcing and
charging for support"?  I'll point out that RedHat ran away from that
model, and that the largest OSS vendor using it - JBoss - has yet to
turn a profit (they are, in fact, deeply in the red).  As with (3),
this model doesn't work.