Does "Open Core" Actually Differ from Proprietary Relicensing?

"I've been criticized — quite a bit this week, but before that too — for using the term "Open Core" as a shortcut for the phrase "proprietary relicensing0 that harms software freedom". Meanwhile, Matt Aslett points to Andrew Lampitt's "Open Core" definition as canonical. I admit I wasn't aware of Lampitt's definition before, but I dutifully read it when Aslett linked to it, and I quote it here:

[Lampitt] propose[s] the following for the Open Core Licensing business model:

* core is GPL: if you embed the GPL in closed source, you pay a fee
* technical support of GPL product may be offered for a fee (up for debate as to whether it must be offered)
* annual commercial subscription includes: indemnity, technical support, and additional features and/or platform support. (Additional commercial features having viewable or closed source, becoming GPL after timebomb period are both up for debate).
* professional services and training are for a fee.

The amusing fact about this definition is that half the things on it (i.e., technical support, services/training, indemnity, tech support) can be part of any FLOSS business model and do not require the offering company to hold the exclusive right of proprietary relicensing."

Complete Story

Related Stories:

• Canonical, Ltd. Finally On Record: Seeking Open Core(Oct 18, 2010)
• Software Freedom Conservancy Appoints Full-Time Executive Director(Oct 06, 2010)
• Considerations For FLOSS Hackers About Oracle vs. Google(Sep 07, 2010)
• The GPL Wins Again (Aug 06, 2010)
• At Least Motorola Admits It(Jul 16, 2010)
• Do Build Environments Give Companies an End Run Around the GPL?(May 24, 2010)
• Beware of Proprietary Drift(May 10, 2010)
• Proprietary Licenses Are Even Worse Than They Look(Apr 08, 2010)
• Interview: Eben Moglen - Freedom vs. The Cloud Log(Mar 19, 2010)