Easily installed isn't part of the opensource definition, any more than source available means opensource. Calling companies that are pure opensource, open-core

Easily installed isn't part of the opensource definition, any more than source available means opensource. Calling companies that are pure opensource, open-core is misleading and detracts from the conversation, imo. Centos was a binary distribution because Redhat made redistributions of binary RHEL harder to distribute(images/logos/binaries/names via copyright/trademark), but that was part of their business model. The source however was available under opensource licenses, and most of that was from separate upstream communities, aka its linux distro (though they have lots of other products). Re sentry, if I can pull the repo and get the same bits under OSI approved license, its opensource to me. Again opensource isn't about release management practices and nice installers (although for sentry its just a docker run/build away). They might be part of good community of practices for sure though. I'd say opensource business models are different and potentially more difficult, but there are plenty of companies selling/supporting/building opensource. The delta seems to be most vc backed companies sponsoring opensource have different expectations on growth/value extraction from customers. aka open-core is not really about opensource, its about selling proprietary products, so I'd prefer not to mis-label those who aren't doing that.