Not what I could call 'open source'.
Basic features (e.g. 'XML and JSON export') require a subscription to the 'premium' or 'enterprise' plans, even when self-hosting.
Basic features (e.g. 'XML and JSON export') require a subscription to the 'premium' or 'enterprise' plans, even when self-hosting.
Also the free plan isn't the same as the Open Source edition, which doesn't have data limits.
I've seen an explosion of these types of companies cloning already popular tools and using open source as their primary differentiator
The TechCrunch article classified you as full open source but this doesn’t seem accurate.
It’s ok to be proprietary and charge money for licenses. The confusion is when the label “open source” is used for non open source software.
Naming matters. If a company can't or won't use the agreed-upon-by-the-software-development-community terminology on how the project is operated, it's souring to me. I also wonder if they (the company) understand what Open Source "is," specifically the responsibility that inherently comes with having an Open Source development/product model. In that circumstance, it feels like they have come to understand Open Source in the same vein that society once understood phrenology[2].
[1] https://about.gitlab.com/company/stewardship/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology