5 ms·
> Open core in practical terms keeps many useful parts away of a product. Well yeah of course. If nothing useful is held back, no one is likely to buy the paid
by danenania 2y ago
> Open core in practical terms keeps many useful parts away of a product.
Well yeah of course. If nothing useful is held back, no one is likely to buy the paid version of the product. That's how freemium works.
If you're relying on an open source project, you should want it to have a sustainable business backing it, and that means there needs to be a reasonable balance between free and paid features. If a project isn't helping anyone make money, no one is likely to do all the thankless tasks required to keep it healthy and growing, and there's a good chance it will end up abandoned eventually.
- the_mitsuhiko 2y agoAnd if people want to run Open Core businesses I don't want to stop them. I just happen to believe that Fair Source is a better tradeoff than Open Core because it means that if the company goes under, you have a guarantee that _all_ of their stuff (that you relied on) becomes Open Source.
- danenania 2y agoOk, that definitely helps to clarify your point—thanks. But in that case, it sounds like the specific concern is more about open sourcing any proprietary components if the company fails, which seems orthogonal to the specific license. A provision like that would also be fully compatible with open core.