> When this is done correctly, commercial users effectively subsidize the free software for everyone else. This is a good thing. I agree. Read my other comment

> When this is done correctly, commercial users effectively subsidize the free software for everyone else. This is a good thing. I agree. Read my other comments. My company achieves this without open core. When you believe that free software is the right thing to do, it's only logical to think that commercial users should also be able to enjoy the freedoms of free software. Free software or not, companies will pay for enterprise features if done right. Open core is better than nothing but it incentivizes putting interesting / killer features outside the core. And you live from selling proprietary software, that sends a mixed message. "We believe in open source, but [you can't live from it|we don't believe you need your freedoms]" When you are able to sell free software, any feature you provide is open source, you can sleep on both your ears and the message is strong: "we believe in free software and we respect your rights. We live from it and if you do business with you, that's what you get". There's no tension between the open core and the outside. Other people can contribute to your paid part too and that's amazing (yes, we have this). Open core is not the only / best way to implement commercial features.