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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.