Hacker News Reader

Comment by prepend | Hacker News Reader

One of the many reasons why I think “open core” is not so hot and users should choose to avoid them and prefer OSI-conformant open source licenses that give them options when the company does lame stuff like this-fork and continue on.

View on HN

This project is MIT licensed. It is not source available, but is open source (if your definition of open source means OSI-conformant license).

The author/community is welcome to exercise those options that MIT affords them, such as forking and launching a competing product.

OSI conformant license is the only definition of open source - the OSI coined and popularised the term - but you’re otherwise correct.

The definition is whatever the majority of people use it to mean. Just like what happened with REST. It might not be palatable, but you either choose to understand what people mean, or you struggle and shout into the void about people with a common understanding that doesn't match what you think a term should mean.

This is a false dichotomy: just like REST, people can choose to understand what people mean and still know they are incorrect.

Thanks, sorry I misunderstood and thought the license was open core. I should have checked the license instead of just reading through the issue and assuming based on the headline.

I think you are confusing two different things. Open core just means the “core” if the project is open source (with a real open source license) while some other parts aren’t. You might be confusing it with the notion of “source available”, or the BSL and similar licenses.

for most b2b software (especially one with a UI / requires a good design, e.g. a CRM or BI), I prefer to just pay a reasonable subscription and get a good product in return. Most "open source alternatives" in these categories are a farce.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com