Well, it's better than a lot of these "open source" product announcements that are actually not even close to open source. They just want to capture the marketing and SEO advantages of being labeled such. A lot of these have been popping up lately (especially around low/no-code and ML tools) and are actually under a proprietary or other non-open-source license. (Sometimes the founders even push back and say, "but it's on github, you can read all of it, that makes it open source according to my definition!")
Open Core is a fine concept and can work well, my only ask is that companies which do it clearly explain which features/functionality are in each version so that I don't have to sift through marketing drivel to figure it out myself. Or start using the software and click on an interesting button only to be told, "oh snap, you gotta pay for that."
> Sometimes the founders even push back and say, "but it's on github, you can read all of it, that makes it open source according to my definition!"
Last year I started to take an interest in these kinds of cases and created a repo to document such projects and their communications on the matter. Here's the repo if this is an area of intrigue for you too: https://github.com/ssddanbrown/Open-Source-Confusion-Cases
The open core will be fully functional - and if anyone is inclined to branch and build their own versions, everything needed will be there to get started.
Hey all - Noodl co-founder here. Just wanted to chime in about what will be open source vs commercial.
Everything you need to build, deploy, maintain, and host applications will be free and fully open source. We will offer a commercial version with extra features, including collaboration tools, version control, and optimizations for scaling apps.
We're taking a measured (aka, slightly slow) approach to the transition to ensure we get the governance model right and have time to include community members in the process.
16 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 19.4 ms ] threadOpen Core is a fine concept and can work well, my only ask is that companies which do it clearly explain which features/functionality are in each version so that I don't have to sift through marketing drivel to figure it out myself. Or start using the software and click on an interesting button only to be told, "oh snap, you gotta pay for that."
Last year I started to take an interest in these kinds of cases and created a repo to document such projects and their communications on the matter. Here's the repo if this is an area of intrigue for you too: https://github.com/ssddanbrown/Open-Source-Confusion-Cases
>Noodl will be available under open-source licenses, with additional features offered in the commercial version.
So only a (small?) part of it will be open source, a number of (unspecified?) features will still be proprietary.
> features such as collaboration tools, version control, and optimizations for scaling applications.
Open "core" might not have been the best wording, since you will be able to open/edit and deploy your apps with the open source version.
https://github.com/windmill-labs/windmill
Windmill says it's focused on internal tooling, whereas Noodl showcases many external apps which were built using their platform.
https://github.com/lowdefy/lowdefy
Going open source, maybe that will make it easier to us to maintain a Linux version of Noodl. That would be amazing!
Everything you need to build, deploy, maintain, and host applications will be free and fully open source. We will offer a commercial version with extra features, including collaboration tools, version control, and optimizations for scaling apps.
We're taking a measured (aka, slightly slow) approach to the transition to ensure we get the governance model right and have time to include community members in the process.