It works better with the Red Hat model: "Here's some flawed buggy software I wrote. Pay me and I'll make it work for your use case."

There's a small incentive to write deliberately obscured code, but I think it gets outweighed by maintainability concerns.

And the Apache Model: Write awful, placeholder documentation, then get an O'Reilly book deal to finally explain yourself and your code.

Seems to be better known as the Sun/Oracle model.

> I've always felt it's a bit of an odd value proposition — "pay me more, and I'll fix my flawed, buggy software".

Hmm. I think it makes sense if you begin with the assumption that all software is flawed and buggy by default.

Support doesnt mean broken software. Many times it's about how to use it correctly to solve a problem, and paying more for response times, customization and general level of work involved makes perfect sense.