Talk:Open-core model

Open Core
It seems this sort of legal arrangement (open source + copyright assignment with rights to use proprietary licenses) is called "open core", which might warrant another article. Some links:
 * http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2010/06/open-core-is-bad-for-you/index.htm
 * http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/10/17/shuttleworth-admits-it.html
 * http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2010/07/20/why_nasa_is_dropping_eucalyptus_from_its_nebula_cloud/
 * http://www.ostatic.org/blog/open-core-or-open-snore
 * —Darxus (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think vendor lock-in is relevant. —Darxus (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

(Above copied from Talk:Canonical's contributor agreement.) —Darxus (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

(Perhaps the first definition of open core) 'In this way, it is clear to customers that there is a "core" open source product that is GPL, and there is also additional high-value available as add-on features for purchase. So who is using "open-core licensing" successfully? Well, Sugar, Jaspersoft, Zimbra, and Talend to name a few of the rapidly growing list. Even MySQL may already be in that category' - http://alampitt.typepad.com/lampitt_or_leave_it/2008/08/open-core-licen.html —Darxus (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think one of the interesting things about open core is comparing it to GPL vs. BSD licensing. BSD means anybody can do anything they want with your code, including modifying it and releasing it as a commercial product (like MacOS X did with much of FreeBSD / NetBSD, and I remember noticing that OS/2 copied their TCP/IP stack from the BSDs). So people who like others to have the option to modify and sell their code release it under a BSD (like) license. People who don't, use the GPL, which basically means anybody can do anything they want with your code except modify it and sell it (without releasing the modified source also under the GPL). So an open core situation is similar to BSD, except only one entity, the one you assign copyright to, is capable of modifying and selling your code as a commercial product. So nothing nefarious, just a question of whether you want, for example, Canonical to be able to say "Thanks for helping to develop Uncomplicated Firewall, but if you want the Enterprise version you're going to need to pay us." —Darxus (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That IS an interesting comparison. Let's complete it: For one thing, "Open core" pretty much tells developers, "Don't contribute to this project if you're not willing to re-assign your copyright." The product I'm most familiar with as open-core is MindTouch, and they are absolutely not encouraging any kind of developer community - it's all in-house. For another thing, I may re-assign my copyright on my contributions, perhaps woo'ed by promises to "use them right", but who's to say the new assignee won't change their mind later about how they want to use (eg., distribute and license) the code? --24.6.228.145 (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is FSFE's FLA mentioned??
There's a strange section titled "Non open core copyright assignment" - why is it there?

If the point is just to show that such things exist, a sentence would suffice. The details of the FLA aren't pertinent to an encyclopedia article about something which is isn't. Gronky (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me to modify or remove it as you have done! - Ahunt (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is Canonical’s contributor agreement mentioned?
I work for Canonical, so I won’t edit the article myself. But as far as I know, Canonical does not offer anything as open core, and has never suggested that it would. Bradley Kuhn accused Canonical of that, then realized he was mistaken. At most, you could say that Canonical’s contributor agreement doesn’t prevent open core, but that doesn’t justify it as an “example”.

On the other hand, Eucalyptus and StarOffice are prominent examples of open core that are not mentioned in the article.

-- Mpt (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know the details of this situation, but I don't see any obvious flaws in what you say so I've more or less made the edits you suggest. More comments (from yourself or others) very welcome. Gronky (talk) 03:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In my view Canonical is not an open core model. Like most Linux distros, it is more of a support, services, and quality assurance model. While that might be called open core if the term is very widely defined, it is not the way people normally use the term.

-- ichiji (talk) 12 August 2020 —Preceding undated comment added 15:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Commercial and definitions
Most of the recent edits, including this new definition, appear to be quite confused: could it be that Ceohockey60 is mixing up "commercial" and "open core"? They are not synonymous. Selling FLOSS doesn't make it "open core". It's completely normal to sell (commercial services around) completely free software software, see https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html. It's also a contradiction to write "open-source software, which may or may not be originally created for the purpose of commercialization": a license is not free/open if it doesn't allow commercial usage, so whoever chooses a free license is obviously meaning to empower potential commercial usages. Nemo 17:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Mongo and SSPL
Mongo is not an open core model so much as a dual licensing model. The discussion of SSPL would be better on another page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichiji (talk • contribs) 16:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Make Sources More Balanced
The external sources are only critical, and should be more balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichiji (talk • contribs) 17:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)