[kiba]

We should absolutely be finding business models that work for open source but not compromising the ethic of it, like open core.

It probably just won't make a ridiculous amount of money for open source developers. It's the tradeoff you have to make when deciding to write open source or proprietary software.

[godelski]

> We should absolutely be finding business models that work for open source but not compromising the ethic of it

I don't think anyone is arguing this. We're only arguing that "Source Available" is an extremely reasonable interpretation of the words "Open Source."

And I'll be honest, I don't see much of a difference between a Common Clause License and MIT. For the average person, they are functionally equivalent. I don't see this as a big deviation from the original ethics and goals but rather than it is an update because bad actors abused the openness.

[scrollaway]

Sure but I honestly disagree that open core compromises the ethics of open sourse.

It's just pragmatic. People are into open source for different reasons. I've been in it for almost two decades and it was always for the the benefits for learning, hackability, transparency, future-proofing, etc etc. All aspects which are perfectly preserved by open core.