For most venture-backed open source projects, "open source" is and will always be a marketing tactic. It's a way to appeal to developers and beat out close-source competitors in procurement.
Users of these projects should expect something like the Skiff sell to happen -- especially if the project is open core or does not use a truly permissive license.
I think it's possible to run a VC funded company that builds open source products using the open core model in ways that respect user freedoms, is successful for investors, and is not a fly-by-night venture.
The execution needs to be carefully balanced on all fronts, which many companies don't do correctly giving this business model a bad reputation, but I wouldn't refer to it as "always a marketing tactic", or as something inherently wrong with the open core model.
I'd go as far as to say that open core is possibly the best way to monetize open source projects.
I agree but that's beside the concern I'm raising. How do you ensure freedom on the non-free part? The answer is in the question, I'm afraid.
The thing you sell also don't need to be proprietary. I work for an open source company that sells free software [1], support, hosting and consultancy. It specifically rejects doing open core in our business decisions. I'm glad it has worked so far (and has been for 20 years this year).
(coincidentally, CryptPad is one thing the company makes :-))
Volume. Open source is a tactic. Developers will like support and open source stuff they're familiar with. Expressif does this with esp8266 and esp32. Facebook does this with llama.
Sure, but I don't think that taking an absolutist stance on free software is helpful. Not for the company that's able to sustain development on free software because of its proprietary products, nor for the free software itself, which likely wouldn't exist otherwise, nor for the users that ultimately benefit from that software.
When the open core model is implemented correctly, the "core" part of the product should be an entirely standalone piece of software, that aims to be best in its class of products. This is already a win for users. The proprietary components around it should be value-added features that are not critical for the core functionality. E.g. optional plugins, enterprise features and services, etc.
When this is done correctly, commercial users effectively subsidize the free software for everyone else. This is a good thing.
Trying to force companies to be fully open source, and shaming them otherwise, hurts the adoption and spread of free software in the long run. Running a successful company is difficult enough, and running a successful company that builds OSS even more so, so companies that do this right deserve to be praised. Those that don't should obviously be shamed, but the fact that some don't doesn't make this business model wrong. They're just shitty companies.
> When this is done correctly, commercial users effectively subsidize the free software for everyone else. This is a good thing.
I agree. Read my other comments. My company achieves this without open core.
When you believe that free software is the right thing to do, it's only logical to think that commercial users should also be able to enjoy the freedoms of free software.
Free software or not, companies will pay for enterprise features if done right.
Open core is better than nothing but it incentivizes putting interesting / killer features outside the core. And you live from selling proprietary software, that sends a mixed message. "We believe in open source, but [you can't live from it|we don't believe you need your freedoms]"
When you are able to sell free software, any feature you provide is open source, you can sleep on both your ears and the message is strong: "we believe in free software and we respect your rights. We live from it and if you do business with you, that's what you get". There's no tension between the open core and the outside. Other people can contribute to your paid part too and that's amazing (yes, we have this).
Open core is not the only / best way to implement commercial features.
Wonder how the folks at Runway and Pika are thinking about this.
To me, it's becoming increasingly obvious that startups whose defensibility hinges on "hoping OpenAI doesn't do this" are probably not very enduring ones.
