"Open Core" means they open-source the core of their product portfolio, core which some enterprising people may use to develop applications on, but for others will really need the buy into the rest of the portfolio to get the best use out of.
I think the fault is with the consumers. Many companies consume but do not participate in open source. All the incentives are there for companies to become vendors rather than participants (stewards?) of an open source project.
I may be mistaken here, but I think we will see pure functionality become less important to enterprise customers, which might (maybe not, but one can hope) proper open source business models more viable again.
In fact there's been quite a bit of vitriol about Canonical profiting from all the hard work from Debian volunteers and not shared as much of that value back to Debian as was felt was deserved.
* I do realise that different release timings can fudge with the timing, but when fedora is building upstream versions and I hear it, its a bit.. disheartening.
I think this usually doesn't really have to do with Canonical at all, but with third party developers only testing against and building for Ubuntu.
"open source" here is working as intended. the thing is, "open source" is misunderstood by many (most?) individuals.
"open source" was explicitly created by Eric Raymond and others in the late 90ies because the Free Software movement was seen as too extremistic by companies still deeply rooted into the proprietary model.
"open source" is a nice way out, in order to be able to look cool, while not actually playing it cool.
I said it in many posts and i'll say it again: if you're require to give up copyright on your contributions and the license isn't free-software... then it's just a matter of time before a company turns your code into proprietary intellectual property.
people that do not agree are simply delusional (or okay with that).
The mainstream FOSS licenses (GPL, BSD, Apache2, etc.) are all included both in the official list of open source licenses [2] and the official list of free software licenses [3], so these licenses are both open source licenses and free software licenses. These lists might have some minor differences, but they share a substantial subset and the definitions broadly speaking define the same thing.
[0] https://opensource.org/osd/
[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
OSS as a term was created at a time when free software, as defined by GNU, was effectively becoming the de-facto standard for collaborative efforts on the internet. Yes, MIT and BSD were around (barely, in the BSD case), but the rising star was Linux and Linux (and the software built on it - GTK, gimp, etc) was GPL.
The industry needed a way to get on the action without touching the "communist" GPL, and that's why ESR's definition of "Open Source" was endorsed. Obviously they coopted all the existing bits they were ok with (i.e. all the ones that did not impose any extra burden on companies), that's why the definitions overlap substantially; but they are not the same thing. If they were, there would not have been any need to create a new definition for it.
which against, doesn't really makes sense.
Stallman has repeated over and over that the Free Software movement is not about communism (despite what communist people like to say).
Most likely, the industry needed a way to get people to submit improvements and patches (essentially doing Development, QA and support) for free without having to give a way the right to sell proprietary services.
The distinction between copyleft and non-copyleft licenses, e.g. GPL and BSD, is different from the distinction between open source and free software, which is mainly ideological. The GPL is a copyleft license but also an open source license, as you can see on the OSI website.
For maximum context, here is a quote from the board meeting minutes [0] where the OSI approved the Free Software Foundation's copyleft GPL license as an open source license in accordance with the Open Source Definition: "The Open Source Initiative is pleased to announce that, based on broad review and acceptance by both the Board and the community, it has confirmed that GPLv3 and LGPLv3 both conform to the Open Source Definition."
But if you take a look at the Free Software Foundation's list [0] of Free Software licenses, you will see that it lists both the CDDL and the MPL as Free Software according to the Free Software Definition.
So why should a new definition have been needed to allow these licenses when they are already allowed by the old definition? Maybe you could supply some of that context you were talking about?
> So why should a new definition have been needed to allow these licenses when they are already allowed by the old definition?
Maybe you should ask the founders of OSI? If their work was fundamentally pointless, why did they do it? Because it wasn't pointless, it was seen as necessary to be able to say "we are Good Guys, but not like them dirty GPL hippies".
If that was true that would have been just some marketing campaign.
There would have been no need to divert the attention from the free software foundation.
In other words, we had a thing that would benefit everyone in many ways, but some people didn't like the marketing message of "users deserve these rights!" so a complementary marketing message of "cheaper and higher-quality software through collaboration!" was needed to reach that group.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-sourc...
Collaboration, across companies, not ownership by one company is the root of open source. To do that you need some kind of governance model. Essentially "ownership" by one company is conducive to quick progress on specific problems, but not collaboration.