[netzego]

"The concept of open-core software has proven to be controversial, as many developers do not consider the business model to be true open-source software. Despite this, open-core models are used by many [...] software companies." [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-core_model

I rather go with this definition. Opensource != opencore. Despite this, you're right, that is the license for `ee` folder.

[OJFord]

IMO it's fair to call it open source if you can reasonably use the open part of it in its own right, if the core stands alone and there's just some closed source plugins or whatever.

Where 'open core' is to be scathingly applied and '!= open source' etc. is, IMO, when you have a system with only some piece open, and other integral pieces not. Like an open backend but closed source clients, keys required so a third-party client wouldn't work anyway, etc.

[verdverm]

That is because you are cherry picking the ideas you want from the wiki page. The first line reads:

> The open-core model is a business model for the monetization of commercially produced open-source software.

The open core movement is about finding a way to financially support open source development so people can eat and work on open source. It is quite obvious that the model which makes some of the code open source and some of the code not, is the best model we have right now. Some of the best open source is produced by these for profit companies. What are the alternatives? We'll before this model gained popularity, there was low quality open source or closed source alternatives for many of the projects we enjoy and see competition amongst today. All of this leads to a more vibrant software ecosystem.

Do you support open source in words or money?

[xbar]

I was with you up until that strange closing question.

[verdverm]

The biggest complaint from open source maintainera is around freeloaders. People want projects and support for free, from primarily volunteer developers. Many toute the benefits without putting money where their mouth is. The open source community is more actively trying to figure out how we can support the creators, than it ever has been.

The question is about reframing how one thinks about their support of open source. The GP that is arguing that open core does not count as open source seems like the kind of open source user that wants it for free from volunteers without consideration for the effort and compensation that it requires and deserves. Open core is a valid way to build and support open source IMHO.

[robertlagrant]

Could they make it open source by turning it into a library that a separate EE repo with a different licence includes? Would that stop it being open core?

[rapnie]

I think it depends on the feature set that is available in the open source project. Often that exists to lure people in, but they quickly find out that the project is too limited or even crippled and they need the EE parts for an actual production-ready solution.

[robertlagrant]

In this case the EE thing just has feature flags and billing things.