Open Core: Difference between revisions
(Created page with ' = a Free Software Business Model =Description= Carlo Daffara: "Open Core (previously called “split Free Software/proprietary” or “proprietary value-add”): this m...') |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
= a [[Free Software Business Model]]; Open Core for me means you provide a free software product, improve it, and don’t release the improvements under the free software licence [http://www.neary-consulting.com/index.php/2010/07/19/rotten-to-the-open-core/] | |||
= a [[Free Software Business Model]] | |||
=Description= | =Description= | ||
| Line 20: | Line 19: | ||
While Open-Core is definitely the commercial open source strategy of the day and is effective in building the revenue growth required to fuel an exit strategy, I have my doubts as to whether it is sustainable in the long-term due to a combination of the issues noted above.” | While Open-Core is definitely the commercial open source strategy of the day and is effective in building the revenue growth required to fuel an exit strategy, I have my doubts as to whether it is sustainable in the long-term due to a combination of the issues noted above.” | ||
(http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/?p=216) | (http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/?p=216) | ||
=Example= | |||
Neary: | |||
"First, companies can’t be Open Core. Products are Open Core. So whereas Monty considers that from 2006 on, MySQL was not an “Open Source company”, I would contend that MySQL Server has always been, and continues to be, Free Software, and an Open Source product. That is, not Open Core. | |||
'''Open Core for me means you provide a free software product, improve it, and don’t release the improvements under the free software licence'''. In my mind, Mac OS X is not “Open Core” just because it’s based on the NetBSD kernel, it is proprietary software. | |||
Perhaps it would be useful to give some examples of what is Open Core: | |||
Jahia is Open Core - significant features and stabilisation work are present in the Enterprise Edition are not available at all in the Community Edition | |||
SugarCRM is obviously Open Core. Key features related to reporting, workflow, administration and more are only present in the commercial editions | |||
JasperSoft BI Suite is Open Core. Lots of useful features are only available to people buying the product. | |||
The key here is that support contracts and extra features are only available if you also pay licensing fees. To take the oft-cited example of InnoDB hot back-up tool for MySQL, you can purchase this and use it with the GPL licensed MySQL Server. | |||
This is why I say that Open Core products “don’t do exactly what it says on the tin” - the features you see advertised on the project’s website are not available." | |||
(http://www.neary-consulting.com/index.php/2010/07/19/rotten-to-the-open-core/) | |||
Revision as of 07:56, 20 July 2010
= a Free Software Business Model; Open Core for me means you provide a free software product, improve it, and don’t release the improvements under the free software licence [1]
Description
Carlo Daffara:
"Open Core (previously called “split Free Software/proprietary” or “proprietary value-add”): this model distinguishes between a basic Free Software and a proprietary version, based on the Free Software one but with the addition of proprietary plug-ins. Most companies following such a model adopt the Mozilla Public License, as it allows explicitly this form of intermixing, and allows for much greater participation from external contributions without the same requirements for copyright consolidation as in dual licensing. The model has the intrinsic downside that the Free Software product must be valuable to be attractive for the users, i.e. it should not be reduced to “crippleware”, yet at the same time should not cannibalise the proprietary product. This balance is difficult to achieve and maintain over time; also, if the software is of large interest, developers may try to complete the missing functionality in Free Software, thus reducing the attractiveness of the proprietary version and potentially giving rise to a full Free Software competitor that will not be limited in the same way." (http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/?p=216)
Discussion
Matthew Aslett of the 451 group (one of the leading researchers in Free Software business models) wrote:
“The Open-Core approach is mostly (though not exclusively) used by vendors that dominate their own development communities. While this provides benefits in terms of controlling the direction of development and benefiting from the open source distribution model there are also risks involved with promoting and managing community development - or not. In fact, many of these companies employ the majority of the developers on the project, so they are actually missing out on many of the benefits of the open source development model (more eyeballs, lower costs etc).
Additionally, by providing revenue-generating features on top of open source code, Open-Core vendors are attempting to both disrupt their segment and profit from that disruption. I previously argued that “it is probably easier in the long-term to generate profit from adjacent proprietary products than it is to generate profit from proprietary features deployed on top of the commoditized product.” While Open-Core is definitely the commercial open source strategy of the day and is effective in building the revenue growth required to fuel an exit strategy, I have my doubts as to whether it is sustainable in the long-term due to a combination of the issues noted above.” (http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/?p=216)
Example
Neary:
"First, companies can’t be Open Core. Products are Open Core. So whereas Monty considers that from 2006 on, MySQL was not an “Open Source company”, I would contend that MySQL Server has always been, and continues to be, Free Software, and an Open Source product. That is, not Open Core.
Open Core for me means you provide a free software product, improve it, and don’t release the improvements under the free software licence. In my mind, Mac OS X is not “Open Core” just because it’s based on the NetBSD kernel, it is proprietary software.
Perhaps it would be useful to give some examples of what is Open Core:
Jahia is Open Core - significant features and stabilisation work are present in the Enterprise Edition are not available at all in the Community Edition SugarCRM is obviously Open Core. Key features related to reporting, workflow, administration and more are only present in the commercial editions JasperSoft BI Suite is Open Core. Lots of useful features are only available to people buying the product. The key here is that support contracts and extra features are only available if you also pay licensing fees. To take the oft-cited example of InnoDB hot back-up tool for MySQL, you can purchase this and use it with the GPL licensed MySQL Server.
This is why I say that Open Core products “don’t do exactly what it says on the tin” - the features you see advertised on the project’s website are not available." (http://www.neary-consulting.com/index.php/2010/07/19/rotten-to-the-open-core/)