61–70 of 202 posts
Which relevant open source projects with a SaaS feel don't suffer from this? I.e. they are not open core and subject to some startup's agenda and risks. From the top of my mind, I remember Apache Airflow, which has a lot of open core competition right now.
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"…
The simple way to look at this is - as long as an open source project is serving the core basic use of a product and choose to keep certain features behind a feature flag/pay wall, it's perfectly fine.
Companies need to survive, and thats important for them to continue to contribute to the core open source product. That's most important.
You don't want to run a product in your company on someone's hobby project, would you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This happens in open source projects, too, often for even more subjective reasons.
But with open source projects the community has the option to fork and carry on the code as the community wishes. With licenses where a company owns and limits the IP, the community is stuck and can just stop using the project. I think that’s a big difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This happens in open source projects, too, often for even more subjective reasons.
But with open source projects the community has the option to fork and carry on the code as the community wishes. With licenses where a company owns and limits the IP, the community is stuck and can just stop using the project. I think that’s a big difference.
A lot of the comments here are along the lines of “this is fine. They should be able to make money to survive. Stop complaining or forkit. This is what open core is”. IMO I don’t think this is what open core is. Open Core should mean that, if a user is not happy with a commercial offering, they are able to roll their own. Perhaps it would take them a bit of time operationally to do this. Maybe they need to spin up th…
I don't think there's any expectations beyond that about internal hosting capabilities or anything else, certainly not in the license anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Ah, the SSO tax. We only care about security if you pay us, even if you implement it yourself.
Ah, the SSO tax. We only care about security if you pay us, even if you implement it yourself.