Peter Czanik wrote:
> OSE is nothing near to being a crippleware. Most features arrive
> simultaneously to OSE and PE (like support for the new syslog spec,
> etc.) or appear in PE first and then migrated quickly to OSE (like SSL
> and database support). Automatic testing of PE also helped to fix more
> bugs in OSE than the community ever did. So the time and energy spent on
> PE automagically helps to improve the OSE too.
I completely understand why you want to defend your project and why you
think your way of doing it is different. The thing is, most if not all of
the people who do "Open Core" crippleware try to justify themselves that
way. (It's always THEIR project which is alleged to be completely different
from all the others.) But the facts speak clear: you (the company you work
for) sell a proprietary edition which intentionally has more features than
the Free one, ergo the Free one is deliberately crippled.
Even if the features eventually show up in the Free edition, that still
means people are getting them later than they could. The normal way to
develop features in established Free Software projects is to develop them in
public, in the development tree (which is also Free Software, obviously),
using what is often called the "Open Source Development Model". In fact,
several people in the Open Source camp defend Open Source / Free Software
specifically BECAUSE it allows that kind of development model. Compared to
such a model, yours means having to wait much longer for the features, and
being clearly pressured into buying the proprietary version, giving up the
freedoms that come with Free Software.
(As you can see, I'm familiar with both the Free Software and the Open
Source view of things. Your approach satisfies neither.)
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
