Tux Machines is a user on mastodon.technology. You can follow them or interact with them if you have an account anywhere in the fediverse. If you don't, you can sign up here.

@tuxmachines bullshit. The Community Edition still is and will be FLOSS.

If you want to call this mpodel "proprietary", you will also have to call that GitLab, ownCloud, Piwik, and many, many others.

@rysiek @tuxmachines I agree that proprietary is the wrong term here, open core is probably the right one. I think this article describes open core quite well http://blogs.gartner.com/brian_prentice/2010/03/31/open-core-the-emperors-new-clothes/

Personally I try to not use any open core software because I belive it does more harm than good to software freedom in the long run.
@rysiek @tuxmachines I agree that proprietary is the wrong term here, open core is probably the right one. I think this article describes open core quite well http://blogs.gartner.com/brian_prentice/2010/03/31/open-core-the-emperors-new-clothes/

Personally I try to not use any open core software because I belive it does more harm than good to software freedom in the long run.

@bes @tuxmachines I look at it as a viable business model. I would love everything to be FLOSS, preferably GPL/AGPL, but that's not the world we live in, sadly.

When I find a good non-open-core alternative to docker (or anything else we're using), I'll go for it.

That's one of the reasons we moved from ownCloud to @nextcloud for example.

@tuxmachines @bes of course there are open-core projects that are pretty much unusable in their FLOSS version. That's just despicable open washing.

But so far (and fingers crossed for the future) docker has it kinda sorted out well.

@rysiek @tuxmachines the problem with open core I see is that there are only two options. Either the free software part is huge and the proprietary part is tiny. Then many users (home and enterprises) can chose the free version and enjoy software freedom, which means that at the end open core doesn't provide a lot of benefits to the company behind it. Or the proprietary part is large enough that almost all enterprise users need your proprietary version, that's how open core companies benefits from the business model. That's why companies using the open core model tend to move over time more and more in the second direction. That's the only way they get customers to buy their proprietary version. This leaves the "small" users with less useful features alone and even more important, it carries the connotation that only small "community users" need software freedom, large enterprises don't need freedom and independence.

Beside that, there are other issue. For example a open core model requires some kind of copyright assignment to one company which I think is bad for a healthy ecosystem in the long run.

@bes @tuxmachines I don't think this hast to be the case.

It's not about the size ("tiny"/"huge") of the enterprise part, it's about the feature set. Clearly there are features that are irrelevant for most users, but crucial for enterprises. That's a good way to cut it.

And I don't think open-core requires copyright assignment. It's enough to use a BSD/MIT-style licenses. This gives the open-core project a way of selling their enterprise version with proprietary features as they please.

@rysiek @tuxmachines Think about "huge" as in impact and not as in line of codes and we are talking about the same thing :) I strongly oppose the line you draw. Because that's just the thinking I described before as "software freedom is only important for community, enterprise neither need freedom nor independence". Software freedom is for everyone, that's why I don't like it. That's also what the Gartner describes if they say that a company loses all the benefits of Free Software by buying open core.

@bes @tuxmachines software freedom is important to everyone but developers have to eat. We are using GitLab, Piwik, docker, and many other software projects that happen to be open-core, but we're enjoying full benefits of free software.

Had these projects been proprietary we would not be able to use them, improve upon them, etc.

@bes @tuxmachines that being said, I would strongly prefer to only use AGPLed software that is not subject to open-core model.

But again, that's not the world we live in, and I appreciate the developers finding a way to distribute main part of their software as FLOSS, while making money to support it.

@rysiek @tuxmachines With "that's not the world we live in" is also a phrase which could be used to defend proprietary software or much worse things happening in the world. We are here to change things for the better, right. And if there are better ways I don't thing we should justify/support other activities.

@bes @tuxmachines correct. And I consider projects being able to support themselves financially not only by being proprietary, but also open-core, a change for the better.

And we should expect and work to get more freedom, and make all software completely FLOSS, but I understand many developers that decide that going open-core with their project is better than proprietary, if necessary to support themselves.

I strongly oppose putting open-core in the same basket as proprietary software.

@rysiek @tuxmachines I would distinguish here. If a company goes from proprietary to open core I would applaud it because it is a step in the right direction. Still I would hope that they do the next step once they feel comfortable. But going from Free Software to open core is a step in the wrong direction, which I would criticize.

@bes @tuxmachines sure. For me that's a bit more nuanced, depending on the software, specifics of the open-core thing, etc.

I can totally see myself criticizing a company that goes from proprietary to open-core, if it reeks of open-washing and bait-and-hook tactics.

And I can totally see myself defending a company that adds a proprietary layer on top of their FLOSS project if that's the way they need to do it to support the FLOSS thing and incentives are right.

@bes @tuxmachines The thing I am concerned most about in open-core are incentives for the developers/project leads.

If the open-core thing in a given project remains a means to an end of being able to work on FLOSS, all is well.

But if it's the other way around, and the open part is just a bait to get people to buy the proprietary version, that's where things go south.

Seen both, so it's not like open-core is necessarily evil.

@bes @tuxmachines and finally, we all need to learn to support our favorite FLOSS projects financially exactly so that they don't have to consider things like open-core. :)

@rysiek @tuxmachines supporting Free Software project is great. For example if I download a Android app at f-droid which the developer also sells at the play store I donate at least the same among of the money to the project. But that's not sustainable. In order to establish a company which can employ many people for years you need a working business model and not rely on donations.

@bes @tuxmachines if only there was a business model that can support development of free software, perhaps by creating a special, more feature-rich version of the same software for those who can afford it.

We could call it open-core.

@tuxmachines @bes and yet again, I do much prefer projects that don't go the open-core way, staying 100% FLOSS, and perhaps selling services (like support). Again, that's one of the big reasons we moved from ownCloud to Nextcloud.

@rysiek @tuxmachines you don't need to build your business model on proprietary features. Support, consulting, integration, developing specific extension... all this can be done without going proprietary. I don't say it is always easy. But that's the way I support

@bes @tuxmachines cool. I kinda don't feel authorized to tell other FLOSS developers what to do. If they decide they need to go open-core to support themselves, but keep their incentives in order (as described before), I don't see a problem with that.

If the "open" part is just a bait-and-hook, that's a different story.

@rysiek @tuxmachines I also don't tell any Free Software, open core or proprietary software developer what they should do. They can do whatever they want. I just say what I like and support and what I neither like nor support.

@tuxmachines @bes I think we were talking about actual "open core" companies. :)