4 ms·

Not speaking about the project itself, but since when did 100% Open Source become a thing?

tomnipotent 8y ago
Kong has Community Edition and an Enterprise Edition with non-free/proprietary features (same model as MySQL, Nginx, GitLab, & Redis). It's called the open-core model. Company is signaling that it intends to offer all features open source and without restriction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-core_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-core_model
- ausjke 8y ago
  the evil is in the details so it really depends on the boundary where the core is defined at, in nginx/mysql's case, the core is large enough for 99% small players, and the big players are willing to pay and the income is enough to sustain the projects. I somehow feel Kong's core is a bit limited which is how I found out Gravitee.
ausjke 8y ago
3 popular OSS models: 1. 100% open source, funded by some entities, you can purchase subscription for its professional support and service. 2. 100% open source by volunteers and the community, document might be lacking but you got what you pay for. 3. open-core, only the core portion is open and you pay a premium for plugins or its enterprise-version/pro-version. I personally do not use option 3, and I think 1 is great for both sides.
- scrollaway 8y ago
  What is the practical difference between 1 and 3? Like, support aside, what's the difference between "pay a premium to access professional services from the dev team" and "pay a premium to access a service already professionally-built by the dev team"?
  - testrun 8y ago
    Onion layers. 1. All layers are open source, but if you want support, you pay. 3. Core layers are open source, the top layers are proprietary.
    - scrollaway 8y ago
      It's not uncommon to request custom software modifications in case #1. Which brings you to case #3 in all but name.
      - egeozcan 8y ago
        #3 means the company will purposefully put very useful features out of scope of the core, while in #1, people expect everything that's not very custom to a specific use-case to be open-sourced eventually - which is usually the reality.
        scrollaway 8y ago
        I get where you're coming from, but is that the reality? What I've seen in practice is that the useful features in question are only useful to very large companies, which is why they're gated. Logic being, "if you're in need of this, you most definitely can afford the premium product, and we'd like you to be sponsoring our work since it's necessary for you to make money". Is it better to let the open source project die on the Hill of Principles, and have nobody actually benefit from the potential wasted work?
  - KajMagnus 8y ago
    For a company that can create its own professionals related to the product, only alt 1 (but not 3) will be free. For example, not all people feel the need to buy RHEL support; they use CentOS instead.

Kong has Community Edition and an Enterprise Edition with non-free/proprietary features (same model as MySQL, Nginx, GitLab, & Redis). It's called the open-core model. Company is signaling that it intends to offer all features open source and without restriction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-core_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-core_model

ausjke 8y ago
the evil is in the details so it really depends on the boundary where the core is defined at, in nginx/mysql's case, the core is large enough for 99% small players, and the big players are willing to pay and the income is enough to sustain the projects. I somehow feel Kong's core is a bit limited which is how I found out Gravitee.

ausjke 8y ago

3 popular OSS models: 1. 100% open source, funded by some entities, you can purchase subscription for its professional support and service. 2. 100% open source by volunteers and the community, document might be lacking but you got what you pay for. 3. open-core, only the core portion is open and you pay a premium for plugins or its enterprise-version/pro-version. I personally do not use option 3, and I think 1 is great for both sides.

scrollaway 8y ago
What is the practical difference between 1 and 3? Like, support aside, what's the difference between "pay a premium to access professional services from the dev team" and "pay a premium to access a service already professionally-built by the dev team"?
- testrun 8y ago
  Onion layers. 1. All layers are open source, but if you want support, you pay. 3. Core layers are open source, the top layers are proprietary.
  - scrollaway 8y ago
    It's not uncommon to request custom software modifications in case #1. Which brings you to case #3 in all but name.
    - egeozcan 8y ago
      #3 means the company will purposefully put very useful features out of scope of the core, while in #1, people expect everything that's not very custom to a specific use-case to be open-sourced eventually - which is usually the reality.
      - scrollaway 8y ago
        I get where you're coming from, but is that the reality? What I've seen in practice is that the useful features in question are only useful to very large companies, which is why they're gated. Logic being, "if you're in need of this, you most definitely can afford the premium product, and we'd like you to be sponsoring our work since it's necessary for you to make money". Is it better to let the open source project die on the Hill of Principles, and have nobody actually benefit from the potential wasted work?
- KajMagnus 8y ago
  For a company that can create its own professionals related to the product, only alt 1 (but not 3) will be free. For example, not all people feel the need to buy RHEL support; they use CentOS instead.