Advertising "open core" software

Mario Torre neugens at
Wed Apr 14 11:06:44 UTC 2010

Il giorno mer, 14/04/2010 alle 16.03 +0530, Rahul Sundaram ha scritto:
> On 04/14/2010 03:49 PM, Mario Torre wrote:
> >
> > But let's take it ever more extreme.
> >
> > Fedora can be considered in some ways as the core version of Red Hat
> > Enterprise Linux.
> >   
> Not at all.  Fedora is upstream for Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Fedora
> has more packages than Red Hat Enterprise Linux.  Both of these are free
> and open source versions.   At this point, you are very very far from
> the "open core" business model.  The definition of "open core" is very
> specific.

Ok, maybe this was too extreme.

> One of the important requirement of open core is centralized copyright
> control which none of the examples you cited have. 

If I understand what centralized copyright control is, OpenJDK has it,
we had to sign a paper to Sun to contribute back, they have full control
over the code I write for them. Even for GNU Classpath I had to sign
this paperwork to the Free Software Foundation.

In any case, the point remains the same. If IDEA is cool to have,
there's no reason in not having it because the closed features are of
bigger benefit.

I would see it from the other side instead, drop it because the open
features are not worth the efforts.

Btw, IDEA is just an example here, I personally do not care. The fact is
that I would not like to see that a policy is being defined here,
because there are other projects where the difference in features is not
so huge, they may be worth supporting then. This should be a package by
package consideration, not a general rule in my opinion.

pgp key:

Proud GNU Classpath developer:
Read About us at:

Please, support open standards:

More information about the marketing mailing list