Talk:Open-core model

Open Core

It seems this sort of legal arrangement (open source + copyright assignment with rights to use proprietary licenses) is called "open core", which might warrant another article. Some links:

• http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2010/06/open-core-is-bad-for-you/index.htm
• http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/10/17/shuttleworth-admits-it.html
• http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2010/07/20/why_nasa_is_dropping_eucalyptus_from_its_nebula_cloud/
• http://www.ostatic.org/blog/open-core-or-open-snore

—Darxus (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think vendor lock-in is relevant. —Darxus (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

(Above copied from Talk:Canonical's contributor agreement.) —Darxus (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

(Perhaps the first definition of open core) 'In this way, it is clear to customers that there is a "core" open source product that is GPL, and there is also additional high-value available as add-on features for purchase. So who is using "open-core licensing" successfully? Well, Sugar, Jaspersoft, Zimbra, and Talend to name a few of the rapidly growing list. Even MySQL may already be in that category' - http://alampitt.typepad.com/lampitt_or_leave_it/2008/08/open-core-licen.html —Darxus (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)