Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Open. For business. You know, it's funny that they are proudly using this slogan. OpenBSD has mocked it in the past, referring to Intel's firmware blobs for wireless NICs: > Some asshole said he was "open" > but he was only open for business. https://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#40b Open core is no big innovation. It's plain ol' proprietary software. It's just like macOS. Most software nowadays has significant free…
I tend to agree, although I probably wouldn't state it in exactly the way you have. Open core's main goal is to sell proprietary software using the open source version as a loss leader. Having said that, I think there are some companies/individuals who truly believe that open core is a good way of funding free software development. I have even heard Bruce Parens claim that dual licensing is practically the only reaso…
Open core business models depends on selling non-free software. Normally all or nearly all development is done by a singular company. The core software could probably just as easily have been free-of-charge, and everything else would have been completely identical. (But on the other hand, if you're not making money, you might as well publish source code in this day and age.)
Dual licensing business models are much more like selling free software than selling non-free software, with that difference that large parts of your potential customers are not interested in copyleft. This is often the case for the embedded world for example. Here it's much more common to find multi-stakeholder communities, since copyleft can bring a much more level playing field.