| |||||||||||||
And in my case I got something different...And in my case I got something different...Posted Nov 9, 2010 2:22 UTC (Tue) by kripkenstein (subscriber, #43281)In reply to: And in my case I got something different... by khim Parent article: FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core"
> 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.
(Log in to post comments)
And in my case I got something different... Posted Nov 9, 2010 14:18 UTC (Tue) by lxoliva (subscriber, #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).
|
|||||||||||||