Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Does “Open Core” Actually Differ from Proprietary Relicensing?

Filed under
OSS

I've been criticized — quite a bit this week, but before that too — for using the term “Open Core” as a shortcut for the phrase “proprietary relicensing0 that harms software freedom”. Meanwhile, Matt Aslett points to Andrew Lampitt's “Open Core” definition as canonical. I admit I wasn't aware of Lampitt's definition before, but I dutifully read it when Aslett linked to it, and I quote it here:

[Lampitt] propose[s] the following for the Open Core Licensing business model:

* core is GPL: if you embed the GPL in closed source, you pay a fee

* technical support of GPL product may be offered for a fee (up for debate as to whether it must be offered)

* annual commercial subscription includes: indemnity, technical support, and additional features and/or platform support. (Additional commercial features having viewable or closed source, becoming GPL after timebomb period are both up for debate).

* professional services and training are for a fee.

The amusing fact about this definition is that half the things on it (i.e., technical support, services/training, indemnity, tech support) can be part of any FLOSS business model and do not require the offering company to hold the exclusive right of proprietary relicensing. Meanwhile, the rest of the items on the list are definitely part of what was traditionally called the “proprietary relicensing business“ dating back to the late 1990s: namely, customers can buy their way out of GPL obligations, and a single company can exclusively offer proprietary add-ons. For example, this is precisely what Ximian did with their Microsoft Exchange Connector for Evolution, which predated the first use of the term “Open Core” by nearly a decade.

rest here




More in Tux Machines

LibreOffice 5, a foundation for the future

The release of the next major version of LibreOffice, the 5.0, is approaching fast. In several ways this is an unique release and I’d like to explain a bit why. Read more

Samsung Continues to Lessen Android Dependence

Samsung's partnership with members of the Linux Foundation appears to be bearing fruit. The partnership's mobile operating system -- dubbed Tizen -- is Linux-based. Samsung's initial Tizen phone rollout was rocky: The company's highly anticipated Samsung Z launch in Russia was quickly canceled last year, and the company blamed concerns about the ecosystem for the delay. Unfortunately, in many cases, ecosystem development presents a "chicken and egg" problem: Developers won't build apps until you have users, and users won't select your product until you have apps. Read more

Linux 4.2 Offers Performance Improvements For Non-Transparent Bridging

The Non-Transparent Bridge code is undergoing a big rework that has "already produced some significant performance improvements", according to its code maintainer Jon Mason. For those unfamiliar with NTB, it's described by the in-kernel documentation, "NTB (Non-Transparent Bridge) is a type of PCI-Express bridge chip that connects the separate memory systems of two computers to the same PCI-Express fabric. Existing NTB hardware supports a common feature set, including scratchpad registers, doorbell registers, and memory translation windows." Or explained simply by the Intel Xeon documentation that received the NTB support, "Non-Transparent Bridge (NTB) enables high speed connectivity between one Intel Xeon Processor-based platform to another (or other IA or non-IA platform via the PCIe interface)." Read more

Benchmarks Of 54 Different Intel/AMD Linux Systems

This week in celebrating 200,000 benchmark results in our LinuxBenchmarking.com test lab, I ran another large comparison against the latest spectrum of hardware/software in the automated performance test lab. Read more