4 ms·

Imo almost every "open source" VC-backed startup is actually "open core" (including us.) I'm yet to see a startup that doesn't have a significant closed-source

Imo almost every "open source" VC-backed startup is actually "open core" (including us.) I'm yet to see a startup that doesn't have a significant closed-source or restrictively-licensed component. My philosophy for both creating & consuming OSS: the core needs to (a) have an OSI-approved license (read: no BSL, SSPL), (b) needs to be useful without the closed source component, and (c) needs to be easy to run without the closed source component. Otherwise, see [1]. I also avoid AGPL, even though it is OSI-approved. TC has a good take on the economics of fully open source companies [2]. [1] https://openwashing.org/ https://openwashing.org/ [2] https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/13/please-dont-tell-me-you-want-to-be-the-next-red-hat/ https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/13/please-dont-tell-me-you-wa...

benatkin 3y ago
There are still proper open core ones out there. When it comes to closed source* I prefer source unavailable except for security auditing reasons, because I don't want to be accused of stealing their code. I am consistent about not wanting to look at their closed source code, so if get accused of that I will vigorously defend myself from it. I could use a script to git clone without a directory so I can view these offline. :) Some have empty ee directories set up in anticipation of doing this in the future. I don't know if it's to trick people into becoming tainted by it or to increase acceptance, but it no doubt tricks people into downloading and viewing source-available proprietary code. It's one feature of a monorepo that I see as a disadvantage that has further had me be more of a microrepo guy. :) If it's source available for a security reason I prefer it to be in its own repo like Tarsnap. https://www.tarsnap.com/open-source.html https://www.tarsnap.com/open-source.html Here's the source available one: https://github.com/Tarsnap/tarsnap https://github.com/Tarsnap/tarsnap Here's the list of repos with some various open source ones to show it's open core: https://github.com/Tarsnap https://github.com/Tarsnap That's a proper Open Core repo. GitLab FWIW follows, maybe pioneered, this ee directory model, so though there's a lot I like about GitLab they get this thing about Open Core wrong IMO. * You can see the source, but it's still closed in terms of what you can do with it, so I am comfortable using "closed source" and "proprietary" interchangeably when talking about source available code.

benatkin 3y ago

There are still proper open core ones out there. When it comes to closed source* I prefer source unavailable except for security auditing reasons, because I don't want to be accused of stealing their code. I am consistent about not wanting to look at their closed source code, so if get accused of that I will vigorously defend myself from it. I could use a script to git clone without a directory so I can view these offline. :) Some have empty ee directories set up in anticipation of doing this in the future. I don't know if it's to trick people into becoming tainted by it or to increase acceptance, but it no doubt tricks people into downloading and viewing source-available proprietary code. It's one feature of a monorepo that I see as a disadvantage that has further had me be more of a microrepo guy. :) If it's source available for a security reason I prefer it to be in its own repo like Tarsnap. https://www.tarsnap.com/open-source.html https://www.tarsnap.com/open-source.html Here's the source available one: https://github.com/Tarsnap/tarsnap https://github.com/Tarsnap/tarsnap Here's the list of repos with some various open source ones to show it's open core: https://github.com/Tarsnap https://github.com/Tarsnap That's a proper Open Core repo. GitLab FWIW follows, maybe pioneered, this ee directory model, so though there's a lot I like about GitLab they get this thing about Open Core wrong IMO. * You can see the source, but it's still closed in terms of what you can do with it, so I am comfortable using "closed source" and "proprietary" interchangeably when talking about source available code.