I'm getting annoyed at project saying that they are open source and then it turns out they are actually open core. I'm fine with dual licensing but not with false marketing.

Unless the core is not a product that can work by itself. I'd say it's still open source. Paid closed source extensions don't make it less open source.

They make it less open source than if the extensions were open source, or if the functionality was just part of the core system.

It's a historical artifact in this case. There was no commercial offering. But then I got requests for particular features and ongoing maintenance / support. This then became the additional parts you can buy.

If that is the case, then the word "limitations" is very misleading, almost dishonest marketing. It would be more honest if the regular offering was presented as a complete product, with optional commercial "extensions", whose documentation is separate.

It lies in the eye of the beholder what you consider a limitation. I invite you to look at the home page and compare what's available for free and what isn't and draw your conclusion then.

>It lies in the eye of the beholder what you consider a limitation. I invite you to look at the home page and compare what's available for free and what isn't and draw your conclusion then.

I tried to look, but you want me to evaluate your project by going through the manual and search for the "Pro" tag (as per your documentation [*]) while here you tell us "look at the home page".

Your project is great and your work is much appreciated,thank you for that. What I am seeking is clarity of the offering, because if I choose FBS for my floss project, I do not plan to pay 50€ for a hidden cost.

[*]

> Support for the latest versions of Python, PyQt6, PySide6 and PyInstaller.

> All features marked Pro in the Manual.

Dude the latest version of python that the free version supports is 3.6, which is out of support (including security patches). The free tier of your application is simply unusable.

Hey, I support your decisions, but I do think that finding the list of limitations is annoying. Scrolling through your manual looking for "Pro" markers is a little error prone I feel - maybe if you could surface the pro-ness of them into the table of contents of the manual at least?

> I'm fine with dual licensing but not with false marketing.

I love getting source code, but there are places where you really are looking for Free Software, not merely open source. Open core model products are really frustrating because maybe your use case isn't one where the value is high enough to be worth paying for "pro". I run into this often when someone asks about doing charity work. I do really like it though when an open core company is clear about it.

It's actually a bit worse than open core, in that the closed source version of the program works with versions of Python that have not been end-of-lifed [1] but the open source version of the program does not [2]. Because of that I'm not comfortable calling this open-anything.

This is a closed-source program that used to have a open-source version, which is now abandonware.

[1] https://devguide.python.org/devcycle/#end-of-life-branches

[2] https://build-system.fman.io/manual/#requirements

Open core is open source, just a layer on top of it. All the freedoms of FOSS are guaranteed for the software in the repo you are looking at.

The fact they make money by providing even more doesn't make it less open source.