[madeofpalk]

They're explicitly not conflating the two.

They say they have a closed source hosted offering, and an open source self-hosted offering.

It's fair to call the overall approach something like 'open core' or 'source available', but when you offer the open core under a license like AGPL, it think it's pretty hard to claim that isn't open source.

[zeeg]

When you offer a subset of the product as open, and a subset as not open, its not open source. Pretty simple math for me.

This is not a comment on "which" OSI license they used for the open part, but I will not support people calling Open Core broadly Open Source, as its not.

[madeofpalk]

There's two things. One is open source, the other is not. I don't think it's that underhanded.