I disagree that they’re “just doing the open core model”. Open Core typically is fully proprietary and provides no source access. The least proprietary open cor

I disagree that they’re “just doing the open core model”. Open Core typically is fully proprietary and provides no source access. The least proprietary open core product I can think of is RHEL, and the source they provide is heavily crippled: last I checked it’s basically a giant tarball of patches they throw over the wall every few years, with even more restrictive usage rules (try using the “Red Hat” trademark in your product and count the seconds before their legal department gives you a call). In comparison Commons Clause is very lax. I get that Commons Clause does not meet the official definition of Open Source (which I believe they admit upfront), but it’s definitely different from “open core” and from whatever Red Hat calls their model. Since it’s something new, it seems reasonable to give it a new name. I don’t have any strong opinions about the name “Commons Clause, maybe there’s a better name for it, but I wouldn’t call this one deceptive.