[zeeg]

Postgres is not operated by the same people as Neon or Amazon, thats a fundamental difference. I was also not suggesting commercial cannot benefit Open Source (and would in fact quite the opposite).

In general I was not commenting if they're opposed, but suggesting an Open Core project is Open Source is not truthful. "Core" is a meaningless term, and if we suggest any Open Core project is Open Source, I can easily academically argue that the majority of businesses are Open Core, thus Open Source, and we'd all agree that's not true.

This project is Open Core, and thats fine, but Open Core is not inherently Open Source, and if we're going to care about that term in some contexts (e.g. with Fair Source) we need to care about it in all contexts.

[ezekg]

I'm not sure I personally agree with this, and I'm not 100% sure the developer community at-large does either...

Let's take a few examples, which I've shared elsewhere in similar discussions:

- GitLab: Open Source or Open Core? Most would say open source, but (I assume) you would argue open core [0].

- Plausible: Open Source or Open Core? They say open source, but it's actually open core [1].

- Cal.com: Open Source or Open Core? They say open source, but once again, open core [2].

- Posthog: Open Source or Open Core? They say open source, but actually open core [3].

- Sidekiq: Open Source or Open Core? Open... core [4].

Yet, every dev I know would consider these projects Open Source... and yet also Open Core. So there's a disconnect somewhere.

Under this mindset, very few open source startups are actually open source, yet everybody says they are?

I'm not trying to argue either way; I'm trying to point out a real disconnect.

Is everybody just open-washing? Why's that allowed?

[0]: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/blob/master/ee/LICENS...

[1]: https://github.com/plausible/analytics/blob/2dd2f058d1dcae6f...

[2]: https://github.com/calcom/cal.com/blob/main/packages/feature...

[3]: https://github.com/PostHog/posthog/blob/master/ee/LICENSE

[4]: https://github.com/sidekiq/sidekiq/blob/main/COMM-LICENSE.tx...

[zeeg]

This is the problem with the definition. If the product is trurly open source, call it that. If its not, thats ok, but don't. Core has no real definition.

I definitely would never call GitLab Open Source. I can't comment as much on the others. Sidekiq is actually how I think the world should work: its open source, and then they sell Sidekiq Pro. One is Open Source, one isnt. The issue is most people don't operate that way.

GitLab Community Edition is Open Source, GitLab is not. Cal.com isn't open source, but is the Cal product? I'm not sure. Given I started Sentry I can at least use it as an analogy. Early days Sentry was open source, but getsentry.com was not (which was our billing infra). No one would have called Sentry Open Core, because no part of "Sentry" was closed source. That's not true for most Open Core.

[ezekg]

> Sidekiq is actually how I think the world should work: its open source, and then they sell Sidekiq Pro. One is Open Source, one isnt. The issue is most people don't operate that way.

I guess this is where I get hung up on this topic. To me, there's no real distinction between Sidekiq's open-source core and proprietary features vs GitLab's. One has their proprietary code closed-source, while the other has it source-available in a monorepo. Functionally though, I don't see the real distinction. If Sidekiq can call itself Open Source by you, then why can't GitLab? They're both doing the same thing in the end, if you really reduce it down to its core (pun intended?).

I think we had a similar discussion before Fair Source launched i.r.t. ELv2 sharing some similarities here. I argued ELv2's license keys are yet another way of accomplishing the same thing, just differently: separating proprietary code from the core (ignoring the non-compete for the sake of this conversation).

[Peer_Rich]

whats so confusing about open core?

its open source for the masses and commercial for the very few enterprise with paid addons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-core_model

definitely the best of both—sustainability and freemium OSS for hobbyists and small companies

[the_mitsuhiko]

Open Core locks important part of a product away behind a proprietary license. If you build on it you need to hope that the company will hang around. If it ever goes away you have to hope that they do the right thing a relicense it.

[Lutger]

Whether that part is important depends on how you use that product. A lot of open core models specifically target enterprise users with their premium features.

Likewise, the risk only applies to the premium feature set. If those are that crucial to your operation, you would assess that risk more or less in the same way that you assess a proprietary product - because that is what it is.

For example, if all the security features are essential to your work and you pay for the ultimate version, then Gitlab is more or less a closed source product for you. However, if you are a big company and use self-hosted free version of gitlab to have a cheap inner source hosting for all employees, then it is exactly as if you use an open source product.

There are more nuances of course in a real assessment, but basically the open part is open source and the closed part is proprietary. Very simple.

[yakkomajuri]

Well the tricky bit is that AFAIK most of these companies have or at least had a full product that was indeed FOSS but then have a cloud offering which is open core.

Provided that the open source product is a close-enough subset of the open core cloud offering I think it's fine to take the easy route of just calling yourself open source although it's certainly a gray area.

[andrewf]

There is a distinct Postgres entity which doesn't upsell, that's true. But looking at https://www.postgresql.org/community/contributors/ it seems like most of the actual people are employed to work on Postgres by companies who sell, among other things, proprietary Postgres derivatives and tooling. Maybe if one company came to dominate the list we'd be in trouble..

[nikita]

At neon we only worry about hyperscalers particularly Amazon. But they already have Aurora so we just open source everything under Apache 2.0

Being open is extremely important to us to build trust and we had this since day 1. VCs are fine with it because monetization is all cloud