5 ms·

More like "fauxpensource". All the useful features are part of the expensive looking Business plan. I don't mind people charging money for software, but I reall

by elric 6y ago

More like "fauxpensource". All the useful features are part of the expensive looking Business plan. I don't mind people charging money for software, but I really wish they wouldn't pretend to be open source when they're not.

thayne 6y ago
So many "open core" projects are really crippleware. The open core business model just makes too much of an incentive to make core functionality proprietary. I guess one nice thing is you could fork the open-source version and add the "business/enterprise" features to it yourself. I'm sure that would earn you the ire of the company that makes said software though. I'd love to see the pull request to add such features to the open source version. Would you get a response like "The PR looks great, but it doesn't align with our business model, so we'll have to reject it."?
- smartbit 6y ago
  Gitlab regularly considers moving features to Open Source version.
  - mrmonkeyman 6y ago
    They "consider" it?
remy_ 6y ago
The paid version is also distributed under Open Source license, but is not free (as in free beer).
- elric 6y ago
  How does that work? If it's open source, I can get the source and run it for free, hell, I could even redistribute it for free. What's stopping me from doing this? I assumed it was that the non-free features were distributed under a proprietary license which comes with an invoice attached?
  - remy_ 6y ago
    It's the same model than redhat, you buy a subscription, and the software checks if you have a valid subscription. Nothing is stopping you from modifying the source to remove that check, re-build and re-distribute for free (or for a fee) under another name. This allows community-driven projects like Centos or Fedora to exist. It's an ambitious business model, which doesn't prevent other to compete. The bet is companies that rely on the service will want to pay and will prefer getting professional services / hosting from the original maintainers.
    - elric 6y ago
      Thanks for clarifying that, I'll have to reconsider my opinion on passbolt.
  - httpsterio 6y ago
    Well, the law and moral basically. What stops you from torrenting all your games and apps and not distributing them forward?
    - vxNsr 6y ago
      Open source implies that the law doesn’t prevent you from doing whatever you want with it.
    - kumarharsh 6y ago
      speaking from a personal viewpoint. I've pirated tons of stuff back in the days as a student, and know how to do all that even today. But now I've stopped pirating stuff. It's partially because I've actually started earning money, but also because nowadays, it is incredibly easy to be able to PAY for stuff. And many companies actively integrate with local payment gateways and sell me stuff in my local currency too, which makes decision making much easier. It's actually become so easy that I straight-off decline when any friend of mine asks me to help them pirate softwares.

by elric 6y ago

thayne 6y ago

So many "open core" projects are really crippleware. The open core business model just makes too much of an incentive to make core functionality proprietary. I guess one nice thing is you could fork the open-source version and add the "business/enterprise" features to it yourself. I'm sure that would earn you the ire of the company that makes said software though. I'd love to see the pull request to add such features to the open source version. Would you get a response like "The PR looks great, but it doesn't align with our business model, so we'll have to reject it."?

smartbit 6y ago
Gitlab regularly considers moving features to Open Source version.
- mrmonkeyman 6y ago
  They "consider" it?

remy_ 6y ago

The paid version is also distributed under Open Source license, but is not free (as in free beer).

elric 6y ago
How does that work? If it's open source, I can get the source and run it for free, hell, I could even redistribute it for free. What's stopping me from doing this? I assumed it was that the non-free features were distributed under a proprietary license which comes with an invoice attached?
- remy_ 6y ago
  It's the same model than redhat, you buy a subscription, and the software checks if you have a valid subscription. Nothing is stopping you from modifying the source to remove that check, re-build and re-distribute for free (or for a fee) under another name. This allows community-driven projects like Centos or Fedora to exist. It's an ambitious business model, which doesn't prevent other to compete. The bet is companies that rely on the service will want to pay and will prefer getting professional services / hosting from the original maintainers.
  - elric 6y ago
    Thanks for clarifying that, I'll have to reconsider my opinion on passbolt.
- httpsterio 6y ago
  Well, the law and moral basically. What stops you from torrenting all your games and apps and not distributing them forward?
  - vxNsr 6y ago
    Open source implies that the law doesn’t prevent you from doing whatever you want with it.
  - kumarharsh 6y ago
    speaking from a personal viewpoint. I've pirated tons of stuff back in the days as a student, and know how to do all that even today. But now I've stopped pirating stuff. It's partially because I've actually started earning money, but also because nowadays, it is incredibly easy to be able to PAY for stuff. And many companies actively integrate with local payment gateways and sell me stuff in my local currency too, which makes decision making much easier. It's actually become so easy that I straight-off decline when any friend of mine asks me to help them pirate softwares.