Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When 'open core' projects reject contributions for competing with the EE

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 202 posts

Re: When 'open core' projects reject contributions for competing with the EE

#31

Post by kuschku »

pydry wrote: post #25
mhx1138 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem is the terminology. People grew up when open source software was also free. Open core uses the same terminology, although products are only open and free in a limited way. I don’t want to assume intend, but many users are mislead that way.

I think the problem is entitlement more than terminology.

If someone builds a feature faster, better, and more open than the paid alternative and gives it away long before the enterprise version even announces the feature, where is the entitlement?

Re: When 'open core' projects reject contributions for competing with the EE

#32

Post by pydry »

hannob wrote: post #24
byefruit wrote: post #12

I don't see the problem here? It's their project and they can choose what they want to maintain. If you disagree, it's perfectly fine to fork the project and implement this but then you bear the cost of maintenance. These kinds of open source projects need to be sustainable, you can't expect the companies producing them to continue maintaining and investing in them without some sustainable way of doing it. I don't se…

Without putting blame on anyone, this does show a fundamental issue with the open core model. It is built on the premise that your "open" product will not be as good as possible, so you can still have the higher priced "enterprise" product. I think it's fair to point that out. Usually, you expect that developers want to create software that is "as good as possible". They may have a different idea what exactly "good"…

>show a fundamental issue with the open core model

The alternative is the code doesnt exist.

>Usually, you expect that developers

When developers give away software for free I have no expections of them. If they fix a bug I consider that a favor not an obligation on their part.

There is a culture of entitlement surrounding open source which drives "expectations" from people who give stuff away for free and it's maddening.

Re: When 'open core' projects reject contributions for competing with the EE

#33

Post by kuschku »

urig wrote: post #27
mariocesar wrote: post #4

This is expected but still disappointing.

Disappointing that the maintainers need to make a living (or, godforbid, even a profit) and that users can't get everything for free? Nope.

"get" "for free"? Where do users expect to "get" something for free? In fact, users are offering something "for free".

Re: When 'open core' projects reject contributions for competing with the EE

#34

Post by hiatus »

pydry wrote: post #25
mhx1138 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem is the terminology. People grew up when open source software was also free. Open core uses the same terminology, although products are only open and free in a limited way. I don’t want to assume intend, but many users are mislead that way.

I think the problem is entitlement more than terminology.

A person writes code for a feature that is not merged into the project and you call them entitled?

Re: When 'open core' projects reject contributions for competing with the EE

#36

Post by kuschku »

pydry wrote: post #32
hannob wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without putting blame on anyone, this does show a fundamental issue with the open core model. It is built on the premise that your "open" product will not be as good as possible, so you can still have the higher priced "enterprise" product. I think it's fair to point that out. Usually, you expect that developers want to create software that is "as good as possible". They may have a different idea what exactly "good"…

>show a fundamental issue with the open core model The alternative is the code doesnt exist. >Usually, you expect that developers When developers give away software for free I have no expections of them. If they fix a bug I consider that a favor not an obligation on their part. There is a culture of entitlement surrounding open source which drives "expectations" from people who give stuff away for free and it's madde…

The only one giving stuff away for free is the author of the PR. And yet, you're calling that person entitled.

Re: When 'open core' projects reject contributions for competing with the EE

#37

Post by move-on-by »

I am I very much in the ‘it’s their project and they can do what they want with it’ camp, BUT the way they handled it was absolutely awful. Total radio silence until a comment:

> At this point, I see them as doing us a favor by keeping the PR open because that enables us to easily find this code which we can then use to bake our own Docker images.

Then swoop in to close and lock the PR. Again, it’s their project- but surely there was a better course of action…. it probably starts with not ignoring the PR for months. What were they doing? Clearly they had eyes on it… just wishing it would disappear of its own accord?

Re: When 'open core' projects reject contributions for competing with the EE

#40

Post by nailer »

madeofpalk wrote: post #17
prepend wrote: post #7

One of the many reasons why I think “open core” is not so hot and users should choose to avoid them and prefer OSI-conformant open source licenses that give them options when the company does lame stuff like this-fork and continue on.

This project is MIT licensed. It is not source available, but is open source (if your definition of open source means OSI-conformant license). The author/community is welcome to exercise those options that MIT affords them, such as forking and launching a competing product.

OSI conformant license is the only definition of open source - the OSI coined and popularised the term - but you’re otherwise correct.
Post reply on HN