1 year ago

Before then, it was called dual licensing, described as when a vendor owns a codebase and licenses it under both an open source and commercial license. Lampitt also explains that the emergence of a standard business model for open source was welcome and necessary.

The statement declares that open core puts the software user at a disadvantage in the same way that all proprietary software does and calls open core companies that claim the advantages of open source deceitful. I agree that open core ≠ open source and that open source software is eating the world. The difference between open core and proprietary software is that open core produces a substantial amount of open source software, whereas solely proprietary software produces none.