Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
Citation needed!Citation needed!Posted Nov 8, 2010 23:21 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" by cmccabe Parent article: FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core"
"Open core" is a specific business model based on keeping part of the code proprietary and forcing users to pay you for its use. This is quite novel idea, indeed. Can you, please, cite respactable source which says that you must "force users to pay" to qualify for "open core" label? I was under impression that things like Google Chrome (which includes proprietary Flash plugin and PDF reader plugin) are perceived as "open core" - even if Google distributes it for free. Linus does the same thing with Linux. We can discuss if it's good thing or bad thing (I personally think it's good thing) but it's "open core" by any sane definition.
(Log in to post comments)
Citation needed! Posted Nov 8, 2010 23:40 UTC (Mon) by kripkenstein (subscriber, #43281) [Link]
> This is quite novel idea, indeed. Can you, please, cite respactable source which says that you must "force users to pay" to qualify for "open core" label?
GP is right, 'open core' is a term used to describe a particular business model. As a business model, it speaks about how to make money.
Of course, you can use the two words 'open' and 'core' together and mean something else. It's confusing though, to people that are familiar with the term as it's currently used.
It's like using the words 'open' and 'source' and saying that "all JavaScript code on the web is open source - I can look at it!" as people say now and then. But the 'source being open' is not the same as 'open source', as the term is correctly used.
If you want some verification for the proper use of 'open core', just google it. The first result I got there is good enough:
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/Open-Core-Debate-The-Ba...
And in my case I got something different... Posted Nov 9, 2010 0:24 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] If you want some verification for the proper use of 'open core', just google it. The first result I got there is good enough: Interesting. I've tried to reproduce the experiment and got entirely different page. Which clearly says "the important thing to note is that in the dual license strategy a single code base is available under an open source or closed license, while with open core the closed source licensed code is a superset of the open source code". Looks like as with "open source" we have different definitions which are not always agree on details. But as for Linux - the difference is not so big: there are already some drivers which can only be used if you buy the Windows driver and pull the firmware blob from it (think winmodems), so Linux will satisfy even these requirements.
And in my case I got something different... Posted Nov 9, 2010 2:22 UTC (Tue) by kripkenstein (subscriber, #43281) [Link]
> I've tried to reproduce the experiment and got entirely different page. Which clearly says "the important thing to note is that in the dual license strategy a single code base is available under an open source or closed license, while with open core the closed source licensed code is a superset of the open source code".
Actually your article is also clear that it is a business model, here are some quotes from there:
> Open core is a commercial open source strategy
> the commercial license is a super-set of the open source product,
etc.
You picked a quote that compares dual-licensing with open core, and focuses on the licensing aspect. But the rest of the article is clear that open core is a commercial matter, a business model.
But again, it doesn't really matter what words we use, just as long as we are clear on what they mean. The Linux kernel is not commercial w.r.t the binary non-FOSS parts in it. Those parts are annoying, but not there for a commercial purpose. What we call that is less important.
And in my case I got something different... Posted Nov 9, 2010 14:18 UTC (Tue) by lxoliva (guest, #40702) [Link]
There is Open Core Licensing, as canonically defined by Lampitt, and there are the Open Core Business Models it supports. Whether adding blobs and bait to Linux makes business sense is not the issue: the blobs are non-Free Software, the bait is harmful, and misrepresenting Linux and distros that include the blobs as Free (or Open Source), or as advantageous as, is bait-and-switch (Phipps' term) and deception (Oliver's word).
|
|||||||||||||