Question: Why not call your self an open-core founder? My point is, a license model should not be abused an advertisement term. The definition of open-source is pretty straight forward. Also the term open-core. And i do not agree, that is doesn't change that much. From a marketing standpoint, it really does. As the term "open-core" is so much weaker than "open-source". It is a HUGE hassle so sell this, instead of the other. And is classical wording BS and the wrong label as the open-core is much more precise. At least for me, i would not have clicked on this if labeled open-core. I guess that is why projects don't want to do it. But even worse, and that is why i think it is footgun, after reading the actual license terms, i felt fooled and leaving for ever. And that's sad part of this story.
rubenfiszel|2 years ago
I might be wrong but open-core is for me products that expose the minimal amount of features as open-source but are only really usable with the proprietary glue. That is not the case for us.
mitchitized|2 years ago
And that is not the same as Open Source, which is absolute. The whole reason the term open-core came about was to disambiguate projects that could not claim 100% open code, and make it easier for consumers to pick based on that commitment (or not).
Either you're open source, or you're not. Open-core is not open source. Just be transparent and we're cool.
dingledork69|2 years ago
netzego|2 years ago