When 'open core' projects reject contributions for competing with the EE • Hacker News Board

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

#41

Post by bmitc » Sun, Mar 10, 2024, 2:01 PM UTC

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"…

This happens in open source projects, too, often for even more subjective reasons.

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

#42

Post by Sytten » Sun, Mar 10, 2024, 2:02 PM UTC

hiatus wrote: post #34

pydry wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The entitlement is from people that think the devs have an godly obligation to merge this PR.

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

#43

Post by LegibleCrimson » Sun, Mar 10, 2024, 2:02 PM UTC

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…

It's pretty rude to ignore a PR for months only to give it a rejection that you could have levied earlier, especially for a feature that wasn't even in the Enterprise Edition when the PR was created.

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

#44

Post by Sl1mb0 » Sun, Mar 10, 2024, 2:02 PM UTC

kuschku wrote: post #31

pydry wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The expectation that the feature should be merged in.

Just because you created an amazing pull request that everyone wants merged in, doesn't mean the maintainer should or want to do so.

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

#45

Post by xondono » Sun, Mar 10, 2024, 2:03 PM UTC

madeofpalk wrote: post #11

One lesson from this is to not contribute a 'major feature' to an open source project without a signal that it would actually be accepted. Even if the feature doesn't conflict with enterprise/monetisation, the feature could just be against the goals of ideals of the maintainers, of whom the project is up to. Open source is not a mandate that the maintainers must accept every contribution. The author should consider w…

For me this has become one of the biggest frictions when trying to help in open source projects.

Most issues either look like someone has been working on them for quite some time (which seems rude to barge in and waste their time), or there’s no clear indication of what would be valuable to help with.

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

#46

Post by prabhatsharma » Sun, Mar 10, 2024, 2:04 PM UTC

kuschku wrote: post #28

prabhatsharma wrote: post #18

They need to be able to differentiate core from Enterprise. If they can't make money in a sustainable way the open core company will die and so will the open source project. Those who fail to see this reality are only hurting themselves. This is perfectly fine.

If the community is able to implement new features better, faster, and more open than the company, then the company probably should be pushed out of the project. If that has to happen via forking and directly competing with them, so be it.

98 to 99 percent of the contributions in all open core projects come from core contributors. You take the core team out and you will see the project die.

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

#47

Post by klabb3 » Sun, Mar 10, 2024, 2:04 PM UTC

madeofpalk wrote: post #11

One lesson from this is to not contribute a 'major feature' to an open source project without a signal that it would actually be accepted. Even if the feature doesn't conflict with enterprise/monetisation, the feature could just be against the goals of ideals of the maintainers, of whom the project is up to. Open source is not a mandate that the maintainers must accept every contribution. The author should consider w…

Look at the timestamps. It’s months of complete silence, which is not a great sign from a saas. It was clear that the feature was popular.

Another thing that annoys me to no end is locking threads because it’s “heated”. Just accept the grief and venting, people deserve it. It’s toxic positivity.

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

#48

Post by paulryanrogers » Sun, Mar 10, 2024, 2:05 PM UTC

kuschku wrote: post #36

pydry wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

The core project is given away for free, often with MIT or similar license. Thus allowing competition to build their own enterprise fork, possibly based on rejected community PRs of enterprise features.

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

#49

Post by nrabulinski » Sun, Mar 10, 2024, 2:05 PM UTC

pydry wrote: post #23

nrabulinski wrote: post #2

Situations like this one make a company show whether they really are open source or only do so for marketability and to artificially appear more trustworthy. And sadly too often it comes out that it’s the latter

Situations like this one bring out the difference between people who want open source to be supported and those who just want a freebee.

The only freebie here is the PR implementing a major feature which people were excited for, that was ignored for months

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

#50

Post by bmitc » Sun, Mar 10, 2024, 2:05 PM UTC

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…

I personally think it's up to maintainers to set expectations. Many times maintainers will use open source projects on their resumes, advertise them on forums, give presentations, and then will be antagonistic towards even very friendly and objective issues and PRs.

Even something as simple as "I built this for my own needs and have open sourced it for open knowledge and will only fix issues that further my own needs and will not accept anything but simple PRs" goes a long way.