Hubbry Logo
Open-core modelOpen-core modelMain
Open search
Open-core model
Community hub
Open-core model
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Open-core model
Open-core model
Open-core model
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

GitLab Community Edition

The open-core model is a business model for the monetization of open-source software to which a for-profit company provides significant development support. The open-core model primarily involves offering a "core" or feature-limited version of a software product as free and open-source software, while offering paid versions or add-ons as proprietary software.[1][2] The term was coined by Andrew Lampitt in 2008.[3][4]

The concept of open-core software has proven to be controversial, as many developers do not consider the business model to be true open-source software. Despite this, open-core models are used by many open-source software companies.[5]

Use of contributor license agreements

[edit]

Some open-core products require their contributors to sign a contributor license agreement, which either dictates that the copyright of all contributions to the product become the property of its owner, or that the product's owner is given an unlimited, non-exclusive license to use the contributions, but the authors retain copyright ownership. In an open-core scenario, these agreements are typically meant to allow the commercial owner of the product (which in some cases, is ultimately the copyright holder to all of its code, regardless of its original author) to simultaneously market versions of the product under open-source and non-free licenses. This is in contrast with more traditional uses of CLAs, which are meant solely to allow the steward of an open-source project to defend and protect the copyrights of its contributors, or to guarantee that the code will only ever be made available under open-source terms (thus protecting it from becoming open core).[6][7][8]

Examples

[edit]
  • Visual Studio Code is "built on open source", but the binary you download from Microsoft comes with a proprietary extension store and a EULA.[9]
  • Google Chrome is built on the open source rendering engine Blink and the open source web browser Chromium.
  • Kafka, a data streaming service under the Apache 2.0 license, is the open-source core to the company, Confluent, which issues a Confluent Community License, a source-available license that governs additional features in the Confluent Platform.[10]
  • Cassandra, an open-source database under the Apache 2.0 license, is the core to the company, Datastax, which issues enterprise subscription license for additional management and security features inside DataStax Enterprise.[11]
  • Instructure's Canvas learning management software.[citation needed]
  • Oracle's MySQL database software is dual-licensed under a proprietary license, and the GNU General Public License (GPL); proprietary versions offer additional features and enterprise support plans.[12]
  • Oracle VM VirtualBox is GNU GPL-licensed, but some features, such as encryption and remote display, require Oracle's closed-source Extension Pack.[13]
  • Elastic's core, which includes Elasticsearch, Kibana, Logstash and Beats, was under an Apache 2.0 license, while additional plugins are distributed under Elastic's own proprietary license.[14] In January 2021, Elastic re-licensed its software under the non-free Server Side Public License and Elastic License, which restrict use of the software as part of managed services, and circumvention of software locks on premium features.[15]
  • Eucalyptus, private cloud software, has a proprietary enterprise edition which provides additional features.[16][17][18]
  • IntelliJ IDEA CE (Community Edition) is licensed under the Apache License, while IDEA Ultimate Edition is trialware.
  • GitLab CE (Community Edition) is under an MIT-style open source license,[19] while GitLab EE (Enterprise Edition) is under a proprietary license.[20]
  • Neo4j CE (Community Edition) is licensed under GPL version 3, while Neo4j EE (Enterprise Edition) is under a proprietary license, providing additional features including clustering and hot backups.[citation needed]
  • Seldon Core, a machine learning platform under the Apache 2.0 license, is the core to the company Seldon, which provides Seldon Deploy under a commercial license.[21]
  • A number of open-source video games place the source code under an open-source license while retaining the assets, such as art and sound, as proprietary. Examples include Doom, Amnesia: The Dark Descent[22] and Friday Night Funkin.[23][24]

Restrictions on use in services

[edit]

A new variation of the practice emerged in 2018 among several open core products intended for server-side use, seeking to control use of the product as part of a service offered to a customer. These practices, in particular, target incorporation of the software into proprietary services by cloud application service providers such as Amazon Web Services, but with what vendors perceive to be inadequate compensation or contributions back to the upstream software in return.[25][26]

MongoDB changed its license from the GNU Affero General Public License (a variation of the GPL which requires that the software's source code be offered to those who use it over a network) to a modified version titled the "Server Side Public License" (SSPL), where the source code of the entire service (including, without limitation, all code needed for another user to run an instance of the service themselves) must be released under the SSPL if it incorporates an SSPL-licensed component (unlike the AGPL, where this provision only applies to the copyrighted work that is licensed under the AGPL).[27] Bruce Perens, co-author of The Open Source Definition, argued that the SSPL violated its requirement for an open source license to not place restrictions on software distributed alongside the licensed software.[25] The Open Source Initiative (OSI) ruled that the SSPL violates the Open Source Definition and is therefore not a free software license, as the provision discriminates against commercial users.[28] Debian, Fedora, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux pulled MongoDB from their distributions after the license change, considering the new license to be in violation of their licensing policies.[27][29]

Redis Labs made its Redis plugins subject to the "Commons Clause", a restriction on sale of the software on top of the existing Apache License terms. After criticism, this was changed in 2019 to the "Redis Source Available License", a non-free license which forbids sale of the software as part of "a database, a caching engine, a stream processing engine, a search engine, an indexing engine or an ML/DL/AI serving engine".[30][26][31] The last versions of the modules licensed solely under the Apache License were forked and are maintained by community members under the GoodFORM project.[25] Redis itself later followed suit in 2024, switching from a BSD-styled license to dual-licensing under the SSPL and Redis Source Available License; in 2025, the company reinstated a free and open source license by also allowing use under the AGPL, citing that forks (including those created in response to the fork, such as Valkey) had differentiated themselves enough to allow Redis to "compete on product".[32]

A similar move was made when HashiCorp switched to the non-free Business Source License (BSL) on its products, including Terraform, which received the Linux Foundation-backed fork OpenTofu.[33]

In September 2024, WP Engine—a hosting provider that uses the free and open source WordPress software—began to face criticism from Matt Mullenweg—the founder of the project's corporate sponsor Automattic, and owner of the competitor WordPress.com. During a presentation and blog post, he criticized WP Engine over inadequate upstream contributions, disabling of features, private equity funding, and trademark dilution of the "WP" prefix. He called the company a "cancer" to WordPress, and called for a boycott of its services.[34] WP Engine sent a cease and desist to Automattic demanding the removal of the comments, stating that they operated within the WordPress Foundation trademark usage guidelines, and that Automattic had been demanding "significant percentage of its gross revenues" in licensing fees.[35] While WordPress is licensed under the GNU General Public License, Mullenweg began to enforce restrictions against WP Engine by banning it from any services hosted under the WordPress.org domain, including automatic updates and the ability to download plug-ins and themes from within the software. The trademark guidelines were also modified to cover use of "WP".[36] In October 2024, WP Engine formally filed a lawsuit against Automattic for defamation and extortion.[37]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Open-core model

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The open-core model is a hybrid software licensing and business strategy wherein a company's foundational product components are released under permissive open-source licenses to encourage widespread adoption, community contributions, and rapid iteration, while proprietary modules delivering enterprise-scale features such as advanced security, high-availability clustering, and dedicated support are monetized through subscriptions or licenses. This model enables developers to build upon a freely accessible base, fostering innovation and reducing initial , as evidenced by accelerated product maturation through external contributions and lower total ownership costs compared to fully alternatives. Companies employing it, including for its platform and Elastic for search analytics, have achieved substantial commercial success, with attaining public market status and billions in valuation by differentiating core open-source capabilities from paid enhancements tailored for large-scale deployments. Despite these advantages, the open-core approach has sparked debate within the open-source ecosystem, with critics arguing it fragments development by sequestering critical advancements in closed codebases, thereby discouraging broad and risking vendor-specific lock-in that contravenes the communal principles of fully open projects. Proponents counter that it sustains long-term investment in open foundations without relying on donations or ads, though instances of contributor agreements extracting copyrights for proprietary use have intensified scrutiny over alignment with open-source ideals.

Definition and Overview

Core Principles

The open-core model constitutes a hybrid licensing and development in which a foundational, open-source-licensed "core" is made freely available to users and contributors, complemented by extensions that deliver enhanced capabilities. This core must exhibit sufficient standalone functionality to enable practical adoption and scrutiny, thereby cultivating community involvement and validating technical viability without immediate revenue dependence. However, the model intentionally withholds scalability, performance optimizations, management tools, or integration features critical for enterprise-scale deployment, positioning these as paid add-ons to capture value from high-stakes commercial use cases. At its foundation, the approach prioritizes causal economic incentives over ideological commitments to unrestricted openness, recognizing that pure (OSS) frequently encounters funding shortfalls due to misaligned contributor motivations and the , where widespread usage erodes incentives for sustained investment. Empirical observations from software ecosystems demonstrate that without proprietary revenue streams, projects risk stagnation as development costs escalate with user bases, leading developers to seek alternative mechanisms. The open-core framework mitigates this by harnessing viral distribution and from the open component to lower acquisition costs and build ecosystems, while proprietary layers enable direct monetization aligned with demonstrated demand. This delineation ensures the open core remains a credible, modifiable base that avoids perceptions of bait-and-switch tactics, as the limitations are transparently documented to prevent community backlash, though success hinges on maintaining a clear boundary that does not undermine the core's perceived integrity. Proponents argue it pragmatically balances collaborative innovation with control, fostering long-term project viability in competitive markets where pure OSS models have empirically yielded inconsistent financial outcomes for maintainers.

Distinction from Pure Open Source

The open-core model diverges from pure (OSS) by design, wherein pure OSS entails the unrestricted release of all components under open licenses, fostering viability through community-driven contributions, optional donations, or ancillary services like hosting and support, mechanisms that frequently result in funding shortfalls for core maintenance due to reliance on volunteer or sporadic corporate inputs without leverage. In open-core implementations, a baseline functional core remains openly licensed to encourage adoption and feedback, but modules containing advanced capabilities—such as enterprise-grade scaling, security integrations, or specialized analytics—are withheld, establishing a deliberate mechanism that channels revenue from paying customers back into core development. This structural bifurcation fundamentally alters incentives: pure OSS projects prioritize broad accessibility and , often leading to development paces dictated by contributor availability and consensus, whereas open-core prioritizes commercial sustainability, with sponsoring firms directing resources toward features that enhance the core's appeal while subsidizing upsells, thereby aligning innovation trajectories with market demands from enterprise users. The causal outcome manifests in company-led acceleration of core iterations, as proprietary income reduces dependency on unpredictable external funding, contrasting the volunteer-constrained progress in many pure OSS endeavors where maintainer burnout or shifting priorities can stall momentum. Empirical observations from open-core practitioners underscore this divergence, with firms like and exhibiting robust commit volumes to their open cores predominantly from internal teams funded by enterprise licensing, enabling consistent release cadences that outpace typical pure OSS projects sustained by intermittent community involvement. Such patterns highlight how open-core's hybrid licensing facilitates resource concentration on foundational code, without the full OSS mandate to open innovations, thus preserving incentives for differentiation.

Historical Development

Early Adoption in the 2000s

The open-core model gained early traction in the early as developers and firms grappled with monetizing amid the dot-com bust's aftermath, which revealed the inadequacies of donation- or service-dependent strategies for sustaining intricate projects like . , established in 1995 by , David Axmark, and Allan Larsson, transitioned to this paradigm by relicensing its management system under the GNU General Public License in 2000, facilitating widespread adoption while retaining dual-licensing provisions that permitted proprietary integrations via paid commercial agreements. This dual structure, a foundational open-core variant, initially triggered an 80% revenue decline but rebounded within a year, achieving 2 million active installations by 2001 and proving effective for channeling funds into core maintenance and enhancements without forgoing community contributions. By emphasizing OEM dual licensing as its revenue mainstay, MySQL AB pivoted toward enterprise viability around 2004, introducing recurring models like the 2005 MySQL Network subscriptions for advanced monitoring and support tools unavailable in the open core. Growth metrics reflected this causal alignment between proprietary revenue streams and open accessibility: installations doubled to 4 million by 2003 alongside $12 million in annual revenue, escalating to 8 million users and $50 million by 2006 with a workforce of 320. The approach mitigated prior open-source pitfalls, such as insufficient scalable income for rigorous testing and feature parity in high-stakes environments, enabling MySQL to compete against closed-source incumbents on performance and cost. Contemporary accounts lauded the model for democratizing database access while underwriting innovation, with observers highlighting its draw for resource-constrained enterprises through flexible licensing that undercut rivals' pricing. Purist concerns over proprietary carve-outs surfaced sporadically but drew scant traction in an era of maturing open-source conventions, where pragmatic sustainability trumped ideological uniformity; this validation propelled to acquire for $1 billion in January 2008.

Maturation and Proliferation Post-2010

The open-core model proliferated in the post-2010 era as cloud-native applications and workloads demanded scalable, developer-friendly infrastructure, enabling companies to fund core open-source improvements through enterprise layers. , initially developed by 10gen and publicly released on February 11, 2009, exemplified this maturation by open-sourcing its core database while layering on closed-source features for production deployments, such as advanced replication and monitoring tools. This hybrid supported explosive growth, with securing over $150 million in venture funding by 2015 to enhance the open core, reflecting enterprise demands for reliable scaling in distributed systems. Elasticsearch further illustrated the model's scaling potential when Shay Banon open-sourced it in February 2010 as a Lucene-based search engine, pairing the core with proprietary modules for , alerting, and via Elastic's commercial offerings. This approach fueled rapid adoption in log analytics and , culminating in Elastic's valuation by 2015 through rounds that backed core enhancements amid surging cloud data volumes. Oracle's January 27, 2010, completion of its $7.4 billion acquisition of —which controlled —intensified scrutiny on corporate stewardship of open-source assets, prompting community forks like and debates over innovation stagnation under proprietary incentives. Yet, the episode affirmed open-core's resilience, as it empowered vendors to sustain investment in communal cores without ceding full control, contrasting with fully open models vulnerable to acquisition-driven changes and bolstering the strategy's appeal for data-intensive tools. Analyst evaluations, including those from RedMonk, underscored the model's empirical traction by the late 2010s, with open-core adopters demonstrating superior commercial sustainability in open-source ecosystems through differentiated enterprise capabilities that aligned with cloud-era monetization.

Operational Mechanics

Structuring Open and Proprietary Components

In the open-core model, the software architecture delineates a foundational open-source core from proprietary extensions through modular design principles that prioritize integration flexibility and intellectual property protection. The core encompasses essential functionalities, such as create, read, update, and delete (CRUD) operations in database systems or basic version control in development platforms, implemented to operate independently as a viable production system for smaller-scale or non-enterprise deployments. These core components are typically released under permissive licenses like Apache 2.0 or copyleft licenses such as GPL, which permit broad redistribution and modification to foster user adoption and community-driven enhancements without imposing stringent commercial restrictions. Proprietary components, conversely, address scalability and enterprise demands—such as distributed clustering for high-throughput or role-based access controls with auditing—structured as pluggable modules or layered services that interface with the core via standardized APIs or extension points. This enables proprietary additions to leverage the core's without embedding sensitive algorithms directly, reducing the risk of reverse-engineering or unauthorized forking while allowing users to extend functionality incrementally. trade-offs here emphasize layers, such as service-oriented interfaces, to ensure proprietary modules can be dynamically loaded or unloaded, maintaining core and across releases. Best practices advocate avoiding a "crippled core," where essential features are deliberately withheld from the open version to manufacture dependency on paid upgrades, as this erodes trust and hinders organic adoption; instead, the open core must deliver complete, uncompromised utility for its intended scope, as evidenced by sustained user bases in models where the free tier supports real-world production use without artificial limitations. Such structuring aligns with causal incentives for developer engagement, where a robust core attracts contributions that indirectly benefit development, while clear of component boundaries prevents integration ambiguities and supports legal enforceability of licenses.

Contributor License Agreements and Governance

In the open-core model, contributor license agreements (CLAs) serve as a critical governance tool by requiring contributors to grant the sponsoring company perpetual, irrevocable rights to relicense submitted code under proprietary terms, in addition to the applied to the core repository. This dual-rights structure allows companies to integrate community contributions into enterprise-grade features without facing assertions from contributors, thereby enabling the of value-added components. Permissive open-source licenses like MIT or 2.0, when paired with CLAs, facilitate this relicensing flexibility, distinguishing open-core from purely community-driven projects where such commercial control is absent. GitLab, an early adopter of open-core practices, introduced a CLA in 2015 to manage contributions to its dual-licensed codebase, ensuring that external inputs could be incorporated into proprietary enterprise editions while protecting . This approach balanced openness with commercial imperatives by enforcing CLA signatures for merge requests, allowing to hire or collaborate with contributors whose work aligned with its revenue model. However, in November 2017, shifted to a Developer Certificate of Origin (DCO) combined with explicit project licensing, citing reduced friction for contributors while maintaining governance over code integration. Through CLAs and centralized , open-core companies retain authority over project direction, including , feature prioritization, and release cadences, to prevent adversarial that could replicate or expose elements and erode subscription-based revenue. This control mechanism causally supports by permitting the absorption of talent—such as hiring contributors who pre-sign corporate CLAs—without risking loss of exclusive rights to enhanced functionalities. from open-core successes indicates that such structures mitigate fork risks, as seen in cases where companies leverage CLA-granted rights to defend against competitive derivatives.

Monetization Strategies

Enterprise Features and Support

In the open-core model, is primarily derived from subscription-based enterprise editions that extend the open-source core with proprietary modules tailored for production-scale environments. These include advanced security features such as encryption at rest, role-based access controls, and auditing capabilities; compliance s like GDPR, HIPAA, and PCI-DSS alignment; and high-availability tools encompassing automated , multi-region replication, and performance optimization for mission-critical workloads. Such enhancements demand substantial resources for , testing, and maintenance, which community-driven open-source projects typically cannot sustain without commercial backing. Support contracts represent another core monetization avenue, offering agreements (SLAs) with guaranteed response times—often 24/7 for critical issues—alongside for deployment, migration, and custom integrations. For example, Enterprise Advanced bundles these with tools like Ops Manager for real-time monitoring and alerting, enabling enterprises to achieve operational reliability beyond self-supported open-source usage. This structure funds proprietary development while providing value to customers scaling beyond basic needs, as evidenced by dedicated support tiers in models like GitLab's Premium and subscriptions, which include advanced deployment and not available in the edition. By tying payments to verifiable high-value deliverables like SLAs and specialized features, the model aligns developer incentives with user demands for dependability at scale, circumventing free-rider challenges inherent in purely communal open-source where heavy users disproportionately benefit without proportional contributions. Enterprise customers, facing regulatory and costs, willingly pay premiums—often annual subscriptions scaled by usage or seats—for these assurances, sustaining in the core while differentiating from commoditized alternatives.

Restrictions on Commercial Use

In open-core models, restrictions on commercial use typically involve license clauses that prohibit third-party providers, especially cloud hyperscalers, from offering the open-source core as a managed service without either contributing modifications back to the community or licensing the service itself under similar terms. The , introduced by in October 2018, serves as a prominent example; it mandates that if the software is used to provide a service to third parties, the entire service codebase—including hosting, management, and support layers—must be released under SSPL, thereby limiting uncompensated commoditization by entities like (AWS). Elastic NV implemented similar safeguards in January 2021 by relicensing and under a dual SSPL and Elastic License 2.0 framework, departing from the 2.0 license to explicitly bar cloud vendors from reselling hosted versions without reciprocity or payment. This move targeted practices such as AWS's launch of OpenSearch, a forked derivative of , which allowed the hyperscaler to profit from managed deployments without sharing upstream development expenses. These provisions pragmatically defend against free-riding, where hyperscalers leverage the core's value for their platforms—evident in AWS's ElastiCache for and DocumentDB (a MongoDB-compatible service)—while externalizing R&D costs onto original developers, as permissive licenses in pure open-source projects permit forks and hosted offerings without obligation. By enforcing contribution or disclosure for service-based uses, such clauses sustain vendor viability, enabling revenue from extensions and direct support rather than allowing extraction that undermines long-term maintenance, a risk amplified in cloud-dominated markets.

Notable Examples

Database and Data Management Tools

exemplifies the open-core model in databases, releasing its core under the (SSPL) since its initial version 1.0 in August 2009, while reserving advanced features like enterprise-grade management tools and the Atlas cloud-hosted service for licensing. This structure supports flexible, schema-free data storage suited to data-intensive applications, with the open core enabling broad developer experimentation and the proprietary extensions providing scalability for production workloads, as evidenced by 's exceeding $27 billion as of October 2025. Elasticsearch, the foundational component of the ELK Stack (Elasticsearch, Logstash, Kibana), operates similarly by maintaining its core distributed search and analytics engine as open source under dual licensing that includes SSPL, while gating enterprise-specific capabilities such as advanced security plugins, machine learning integrations, and alerting features behind proprietary subscriptions. Initially licensed under Apache 2.0, Elastic shifted to more restrictive terms in January 2021 with version 7.11 to curb cloud providers like AWS from offering undifferentiated managed services without reciprocity, thereby preserving revenue streams from proprietary value-adds tailored to high-volume log analysis and real-time search in big data environments. These adaptations have facilitated swift integration into pipelines, where the open cores handle ingestion and querying at scale— for persistent storage and for —driving adoption in sectors like and e-commerce . However, reliance on layers for mission-critical enhancements has constrained community ; for instance, AWS's OpenSearch of post-2021 license change replicates the core but diverges on enterprise modules, limiting its appeal for users needing seamless upgrades to closed-source optimizations. This dynamic underscores how open-core databases balance communal innovation with commercial viability in handling petabyte-scale workloads.

Development and Collaboration Platforms

, initiated as an open-source project in October 2011, represents a prominent application of the open-core model within development and collaboration platforms. It delivers a comprehensive DevSecOps platform with core functionalities available under the , while Ultimate tier additions provide enterprise-grade compliance, advanced scanning, and regulatory reporting tools essential for commercial deployments. This stratification enables widespread adoption of baseline , issue tracking, and CI/CD pipelines, fostering collaboration, while reserving scalable governance features for paid subscribers. The model's efficacy is evidenced by GitLab's financial trajectory, with fiscal year 2024 revenue totaling $579.9 million, marking 37% growth from the prior year, sustained through open-core monetization that leverages community-driven enhancements alongside proprietary innovations. SEC disclosures affirm GitLab's positioning as a DevSecOps platform predicated on this open-core foundation, which has facilitated outpacing pure open-source alternatives in feature velocity and market penetration by reinvesting commercial proceeds into tools like integrated auto-devops and merge request approvals. Comparable implementations appear in platforms like , which maintains an open-source core for code intelligence and search under Apache 2.0, augmented by proprietary enterprise capabilities for batch changes and advanced analytics tailored to large-scale codebases. HashiCorp's Vault similarly employs open-core principles, offering an MPL-licensed community edition for secrets management with enterprise extensions for features such as replication and namespaces, supporting collaborative infrastructure automation in commercial settings. These structures align open-core with the demands of distributed teams, permitting free core usage for prototyping and integration while gating proprietary layers that address production-scale reliability and compliance.

Advantages and Empirical Benefits

Sustainability for Development

The open-core model sustains development by channeling enterprise revenue into full-time engineering resources for the open-source core, enabling consistent maintenance and evolution without reliance on sporadic donations or volunteer labor. Companies employing this approach, such as prior to its January 2008 acquisition by for $1 billion, leveraged commercial licensing and support contracts to fund dedicated teams, which grew alongside widespread adoption and ensured ongoing enhancements to the core database engine. This structure addresses common OSS pitfalls like maintainer attrition, as corporate incentives prioritize professional-grade output over ad-hoc contributions. Company accelerates iteration and responses in open-core projects, where revenue justifies allocating engineers to , testing, and deployment—processes often slowed in volunteer-led initiatives by coordination overhead. Firms commit to upstreaming critical fixes to the core to safeguard their commercial viability, avoiding the delays of distributed consensus models. For instance, open-core providers routinely backport patches to editions to uphold trust and mitigate reputational risks tied to enterprise SLAs. This revenue-backed focus empirically bolsters project longevity, as evidenced by the persistence of open-core databases and tools through market fluctuations, where self-funding via user-aligned monetization outpaces grant-dependent or purely ideological efforts in resource allocation.

Market Adoption and Economic Impact

The open-core model has facilitated substantial market adoption among software vendors seeking sustainable revenue from open-source foundations, evidenced by high valuations of leading practitioners. As of October 2025, MongoDB, a prominent open-core database provider, maintains a market capitalization of approximately $27 billion, reflecting investor confidence in its hybrid approach of freely available core functionality paired with proprietary enterprise extensions. Similarly, GitLab reached a market capitalization exceeding $15 billion shortly after its October 2021 initial public offering, where shares priced at $77 and surged in debut trading, underscoring the model's capacity to generate billions in enterprise value through scalable monetization. These outcomes demonstrate how open-core enables value creation on the scale of proprietary software incumbents, with companies raising capital faster and at higher multiples than purely closed-source peers due to the viral distribution of open components. Widespread adoption is further quantified by the explosion in usage of open-core software cores, contributing to broader open-source growth where downloads and contributions number in the billions annually. Open-source registries and platforms facilitate billions of package downloads monthly, with open-core projects amplifying this by offering accessible entry points that drive experimentation and integration across industries. A fraction of these users—typically in the low single digits based on software-as-a-service benchmarks—convert to paid enterprise tiers for advanced features like enhanced security, scalability, and support, yet the sheer volume scales to multimillion-dollar annual recurring revenues for adopters. This dynamic has boosted overall open-source economic value, with demand-side estimates attributing trillions in avoided development costs to freely available cores that underpin enhancements. Economically, the model fosters causal against closed-source giants by democratizing core technologies, allowing resource-constrained innovators to challenge established vendors through rapid user acquisition without upfront licensing barriers. This lowers market entry costs, spurs in underserved segments, and rewards differentiation in high-value areas like compliance and optimization, ultimately expanding the software market rather than merely redistributing shares. from open-core successes indicates sustained investment in development, with firms leveraging feedback on cores to refine paid offerings, thereby sustaining long-term growth amid alternatives' higher acquisition expenses.

Criticisms and Controversies

Ideological Objections from OSS Purists

Critics within the , aligned with the Free Software Foundation's (FSF) philosophy, contend that the open-core model contradicts the moral imperative of complete software by appending extensions that deny users the right to modify or distribute essential functionalities. This approach, they argue, transforms collaborative open-source efforts into a vehicle for commercial restriction, eroding the foundational ethos of unrestricted sharing and user autonomy. Community discourse often levels accusations of a "bait-and-switch" strategy against open-core implementations, where developers are enticed to contribute to an ostensibly communal codebase only for the company to sequester high-value features behind paywalls, thereby capturing contributions without reciprocal openness. Such practices are portrayed as diluting the open-source collaborative spirit, substituting market-driven incentives for the intrinsic motivations of peer production and knowledge commons. While the (OSI) has approved licenses enabling open-core structures provided the core adheres to open-source criteria, purist factions interpret the model's hybrid nature as a for , prioritizing ideological purity over pragmatic . In OSS forums and media outlets, these critiques are routinely amplified as emblematic of corporate encroachment on communal ideals, frequently embedding norms that elevate "openness" as an ethical absolute while sidelining evidence of inefficiencies in unmonetized, volunteer-led projects. This framing reflects a broader tendency in ideologically oriented OSS communities to decry hybrid models, notwithstanding their disconnect from real-world dynamics where pure communal governance often yields under-resourced or stalled initiatives.

Practical Risks and Case Studies of Failures

One prominent practical risk in the open-core model arises from community backlash against perceived erosions of , often manifesting as that fragment ecosystems and erode the original project's market position. In January 2021, Elastic, maintainer of —an open-core with a freely licensed core and proprietary enterprise extensions—shifted its licensing from Apache 2.0 to the more restrictive (SSPL) and Elastic License. This move aimed to curb hyperscalers like AWS from offering without reciprocal contributions, but it prompted AWS to 7.10 into OpenSearch, a fully Apache-licensed alternative that quickly gained traction among users wary of license dependencies. By 2024, OpenSearch had established its own governance under the , drawing contributions from multiple vendors and reducing Elastic's control over the 's evolution, with surveys indicating a portion of enterprises migrating to avoid proprietary lock-in risks. Similar dynamics emerged with , where open-core strains—balancing a BSD-licensed core with paid enterprise modules—culminated in a March 2024 license shift to the Redis Source Available License (RSALv2) and SSPL, explicitly to counter providers commoditizing the . This decision, driven by Redis Inc.'s need to protect revenue from managed offerings, triggered immediate forks, including Valkey backed by AWS, , , and the in April 2024, which preserved the permissive BSD terms and attracted developer migrations concerned over future availability. The fork's rapid adoption, evidenced by integrations in major distributions and services, underscored how abrupt changes in open-core delineations can accelerate user defection, with later partially reverting to AGPLv3 in May 2025 amid ongoing community fragmentation. Execution pitfalls, such as designing a "crippled core" where essential functionalities are withheld to incentivize upgrades, have also alienated users by fostering perceptions of bait-and-switch tactics. Analyses distinguish true open-—providing a robust, standalone open component—from crippled variants that intentionally limit scalability or integrations in the free tier, leading to developer frustration and reduced contributions. For instance, early deployments, operating under an open-core with core database under SSPL since October 2018, faced complaints about incomplete tooling and driver dependencies pushing toward paid Atlas services, contributing to decisions like Homebrew's 2019 removal of from its core formulas due to licensing opacity. Such cases illustrate how unclear boundaries between open and closed components erode trust, prompting users to seek fully open alternatives like extensions, even if ideological critiques sometimes amplify isolated shortcomings beyond their empirical scale.

Dual Licensing Approaches

In dual licensing strategies within open-core models, the core codebase is typically released under a open-source license such as the GNU General Public License (GPL) or (AGPL), permitting community use and modification subject to reciprocity requirements, while the same code is simultaneously offered under a commercial for enterprise customers seeking to avoid open-source obligations like source code disclosure. This approach grants flexibility by allowing the holder—often the sponsoring company—to distribute identical software under multiple terms, enabling revenue from users who embed the software in closed-source products or services without triggering GPL viral effects. Contributor License Agreements (CLAs) facilitate this dual-use by requiring contributors to grant the project maintainer perpetual rights to relicense their submissions, including into proprietary extensions or full enterprise editions, thus aligning community input with commercial needs without forking the codebase. For instance, has employed GPL dual licensing since its early days under , and continued post-2008 Oracle acquisition, where the GPL version supports open-source integrations while commercial licenses target original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and independent software vendors (ISVs) for proprietary deployments. The model has evolved to address perceived extraction risks in cloud environments, shifting from traditional GPL dual licensing toward restrictive source-available licenses like the Business Source License (BSL) or . In January 2021, transitioned and from 2.0 to dual licensing under SSPL and the Elastic License 2.0 (ELv2), explicitly to prevent hyperscale cloud providers from offering atop the core without equivalent contributions or licensing fees, marking a tactical response to "openwashing" by service operators. This evolution maintains open-core hybridity by keeping basic functionality source-available for self-hosting while reserving advanced features and SaaS protections for commercial terms, thereby enhancing IP control in distributed systems. Such approaches mitigate certain legal risks inherent in pure open-source models by centralizing ownership and licensing decisions, which contrasts with distributed in community-led projects prone to disputes over interpretation or ; adopters of dual licensing report fewer code ownership conflicts due to explicit CLA-enforced terms, though compatibility challenges persist if contributions mix incompatible OSS components.

Responses to Evolving OSS Ecosystem Challenges

In the open-core ecosystem, large cloud providers have increasingly offered derived from open-source components without substantial upstream contributions, eroding incentives for original developers to sustain development. To counter this free-riding, companies have adopted time-bound licensing models like the Business Source License (BSL), which permits broad use and modification but prohibits offering the software as a competitive hosted service for a defined period—typically three to four years—before converting to a fully permissive such as 2.0 or MIT. This strategy blocks immediate commercialization by hyperscalers while preserving source availability, addressing sustainability threats without fully closing the code. HashiCorp exemplified this shift on August 10, 2023, when it relicensed products including Terraform, Vault, and Vagrant from the to BSL v1.1, citing the need to protect against cloud vendors extracting value without fair compensation or investment reciprocity. The BSL's "change date" provision delays unrestricted commercial exploitation, allowing HashiCorp to maintain control over enterprise features in its open-core model while fostering community contributions during the interim. Similar experiments, such as Sentry's 2023 Functional Source License, extend this logic by tying openness to usage thresholds rather than fixed timelines, further tailoring restrictions to deter service-based free-riding. These licenses comply with core open-source tenets of source disclosure and non-discriminatory individual use under definitions like , though they fall outside full OSI approval as source-available rather than permissively open. In regulatory contexts, EU and antitrust frameworks have imposed negligible constraints, as such measures target specific competitive imbalances without evidencing market foreclosure or collusion sufficient to trigger scrutiny under laws like the Sherman Act or EU competition rules. Empirical observations in the link these adaptations to preserved development investment, as articulated by adopters like , which reported sustained product evolution post-change amid broader ecosystem pressures. Long-term revenue outcomes vary, with some analyses noting potential short-term gains offset by community migration risks.

Shifts in 2020s Startup Landscape

In the early , the open-core model adapted to the surge in AI-driven startups, with funding numerous ventures that open-sourced foundational components while reserving proprietary extensions for monetization, such as scaling and enterprise integrations. For instance, LlamaFarm, a YC-backed company, employs an open-core approach to deliver production-ready AI components for retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) in regulated sectors, enabling community-driven enhancements to the core while charging for specialized add-ons. Similarly, Ollama, another YC alumnus topping the 2024 ROSS Index for open-source startups, facilitates local LLM deployment through open tools but layers proprietary services for advanced users. GitLab CEO Sid Sijbrandij reinforced the model's viability in mid-2025, outlining strategies for scaling open-core businesses to venture levels via and selective proprietary features, drawing from 's trajectory of sustained user adoption exceeding 50 million registered users by 2024. This defense countered purist critiques by highlighting empirical growth, as 's annual recurring revenue climbed to over $700 million in fiscal 2025, attributing resilience to the hybrid structure's balance of virality and revenue predictability. Analyses from 2024-2025, including TechCrunch's ranking of top open-source startups, positioned open-core adopters among the fastest-growing entities, with firms like those in AI tooling achieving valuations in the billions despite broader OSS ecosystem shifts toward permissive licensing. These metrics refute narratives of the model's obsolescence, as post-2020 venture data shows open-core startups securing disproportionate funding—over 40% of YC's open-source portfolio in recent batches—amid challenges like compute costs favoring controlled .

Alternatives and Model Evolutions

The rise of source-available licensing represents a key alternative to the open-core model, enabling companies to disclose while restricting its use in competing services, thereby safeguarding revenue streams without the bifurcation of open and proprietary components. In March 2024, Inc. relicensed its software from the permissive BSD 3-Clause to a dual model under the Redis Source Available License v2 (RSALv2) and v1 (SSPLv1), explicitly to curb hyperscale cloud providers from offering undifferentiated that bypass contributions or payments. This shift prioritizes author control over unfettered modification and redistribution, addressing commercialization risks in commoditized where open-core's enterprise add-ons may prove insufficient against free-riding by service operators. Hybrid evolutions extend the open-core framework by integrating incentives for external contributions, such as bounties for targeted enhancements or nonprofit foundations to signal long-term stewardship and attract talent. Contributor bounty programs, facilitated through platforms that reward issue resolution in open components, mitigate the by aligning community efforts with proprietary roadmaps, as seen in projects emphasizing or feature parity. Similarly, establishing foundation arms—modeled after initiatives like the Foundation's Open Model Initiative for AI—bolsters credibility by decoupling governance from commercial interests, fostering ecosystems around core open elements while reserving advanced capabilities for paid tiers. These variants emerge causally from domain-specific pressures, including the imperative to protect non-code assets like AI training datasets, where unrestricted openness erodes differentiation faster than in traditional software; source-available restrictions or hybrid incentives thus preserve moats around and deployment expertise without fully closing the . Yet, from venture-backed analyses reveal the open-core model's endurance, with commercial open-source firms outperforming closed-source peers in valuations by factors of up to sevenfold, indicating adaptations supplement rather than supplant it where enterprise-specific features sustain margins. No evidence supports wholesale migration, as permissive cores continue enabling broad adoption that funnels users toward proprietary value-adds.

References

  1. https://www.techtarget.com/searchitoperations/definition/open-core-model-open-core-software
  2. https://www.techtarget.com/searchitoperations/tip/Open-core-vs-open-source-Whats-the-difference
  3. https://opensource.com/article/21/11/open-core-vs-open-source
  4. https://dev.to/ryandawsonuk/the-open-core-business-model-363n
  5. https://medium.com/codex/what-is-open-core-6fc72fffbb24
  6. https://e3mag.com/en/open-core-contradicts-the-spirit-of-open-source/
  7. https://www.opencoreventures.com/blog/open-core-is-a-misunderstood-business-model
  8. https://peterzaitsev.com/open-source-business-models-open-core-vs-crippled-core/
  9. https://www.bcg.com/publications/2021/open-source-software-strategy-benefits
  10. https://www.cmswire.com/information-management/open-source-vs-open-core-whats-the-difference/
  11. https://www.govocal.com/blog/whats-the-difference-opensource-opencore
  12. https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/open-source-or-open-core-why-should-you-care
  13. https://joemorrison.medium.com/three-models-for-commercializing-open-source-software-84d3130c82cd
  14. https://www.forbes.com/sites/glennsolomon/2020/09/15/monetizing-open-source-business-models-that-generate-billions/
  15. https://dri.es/the-history-of-mysql-ab
  16. https://blogs.oracle.com/mysql/post/mysql-enters-a-new-decade
  17. https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/mysql-takes-cue-from-the-master/
  18. https://www.wired.com/2004/02/mysql-profits-from-open-source/
  19. https://www.wired.com/2008/01/sun-shines-the-1-billion-light-on-mysql-acquisition/
  20. https://www.sequoiacap.com/podcast/crucible-moments-mongodb/
  21. https://www.indexventures.com/perspectives/elastic-the-evolution-of-open-source/
  22. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/jan/22/oracle-sun-microsystems
  23. https://www.infoworld.com/article/2271788/many-open-sourcers-back-an-oracle-takeover-of-mysql-2.html
  24. https://redmonk.com/sogrady/2010/06/30/open-core-is-the-new-dual-licensing/
  25. https://handbook.opencoreventures.com/open-core-model/
  26. https://woofresh.com/what-is-open-core-business-model/
  27. https://www.opencoreventures.com/blog/preventing-the-bait-and-switch-by-open-core-software-companies
  28. https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/cla
  29. https://about.gitlab.com/press/releases/2017-11-01-gitlab-transitions-contributor-license/
  30. https://docs.gitlab.com/legal/individual_contributor_license_agreement/
  31. https://www.hashicorp.com/blog/introducing-a-cla
  32. https://meshedinsights.com/tag/governance/
  33. https://www.daytona.io/definitions/o/open-core
  34. https://sergeycyw.substack.com/p/mongodb-gaining-ground-in-the-96b
  35. https://about.gitlab.com/pricing/
  36. https://www.elastic.co/blog/licensing-change
  37. https://redis.io/blog/agplv3/
  38. https://www.scylladb.com/2018/10/22/the-dark-side-of-mongodbs-new-license/
  39. https://stockanalysis.com/stocks/mdb/market-cap/
  40. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/MDB/
  41. https://www.elastic.co/elastic-stack
  42. https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch
  43. https://www.elastic.co/blog/why-license-change-aws
  44. https://www.elastic.co/pricing/faq/licensing
  45. https://www.netapp.com/learn/cvo-blg-elasticsearch-vs-mongodb-6-key-differences/
  46. https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/announcing-amazon-opensearch-service-which-supports-opensearch-10/
  47. https://virtualizationreview.com/articles/2024/09/16/aws-open-source-brouhaha-about-elasticsearch-takes-another-turn.aspx
  48. https://kinsta.com/blog/gitlab-vs-github/
  49. https://www.techzine.eu/blogs/devops/43256/gitlab-is-a-devsecops-platform-with-open-source-at-its-core/
  50. https://about.gitlab.com/blog/look-back-on-11-11-cicd/
  51. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1653482/000162828024012963/gtlb-20240131.htm
  52. https://content.edgar-online.com/ExternalLink/EDGAR/0001628280-24-039196.html?hash=ba2016be7f54265acfb36c1fcc5f1065c059f1012e5d4515de2599b40949fef1&dest=gitlab-20240731xex31fy25_htm
  53. https://sourcegraph.com/blog/open-sourcing-cody
  54. https://developer.hashicorp.com/vault
  55. https://visualstudiomagazine.com/articles/2008/01/16/sun-to-acquire-mysql-for-1-billion.aspx
  56. https://dirkriehle.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/commercial_v9_revision.pdf
  57. https://companiesmarketcap.com/mongodb/marketcap/
  58. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/14/gitlab-jumps-in-nasdaq-debut-after-pricing-ipo-above-expected-range.html
  59. https://news.itsfoss.com/open-source-infrastructure-is-breaking-down/
  60. https://about.scarf.sh/post/the-open-source-business-metrics-guide
  61. https://www.library.hbs.edu/working-knowledge/open-source-software-the-nine-trillion-resource-companies-take-for-granted
  62. https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/09/25/Open-Core-Stories
  63. https://www.reddit.com/r/opensource/comments/wev491/is_open_core_considered_a_bastardization_of_open/
  64. https://ambiguiti.es/open-core/
  65. https://www.opencoreventures.com/blog/a-standard-pricing-model-for-open-core
  66. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35025865
  67. https://jamesdixon.wordpress.com/2009/10/05/misunderstanding-open-source-3-applying-free-software-religion-to-open-source-business-models/
  68. https://opensearch.org/about/
  69. https://thenewstack.io/opensearch-how-the-project-went-from-fork-to-foundation/
  70. https://www.computing.co.uk/news/2025/open-source/redis-returns-to-the-open-source-fold
  71. https://www.theregister.com/2018/10/16/mongodb_licensning_change/
  72. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20861890
  73. https://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/oem/
  74. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-open-core-gpl-dual-licensing-model-works-mark-curphey
  75. https://www.blackduck.com/blog/software-licensing-decisions-consider-dual-licensing.html
  76. https://blog.opentap.io/dual-licensing-open-source-software
  77. https://litux.nl/mirror/mysqlcertification/0672326329/ch01lev1sec4.html
  78. https://www.elastic.co/blog/elastic-license-update
  79. https://sourcecodecontrol.com/elasticsearch-moves-to-source-available-sspl/
  80. https://www.traverselegal.com/blog/dual-licensing-open-source/
  81. https://www.hashicorp.com/en/blog/hashicorp-adopts-business-source-license
  82. https://spacelift.io/blog/terraform-license-change
  83. https://techcrunch.com/2023/11/20/with-functional-source-license-sentry-wants-to-grant-developers-freedom-without-harmful-free-riding/
  84. https://victoriametrics.com/blog/bsl-is-short-term-fix-why-we-choose-open-source/
  85. https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/industry/infrastructure
  86. https://techcrunch.com/2025/03/22/the-20-hottest-open-source-startups-of-2024/
  87. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/sijbrandij_building-venture-scale-open-core-open-core-activity-7355672224017641474--eBi
  88. https://redis.io/legal/licenses/
  89. https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/22/redis_changes_license/
  90. https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/redis-license-update-what-you-need-to-know/
  91. https://www.goodwinlaw.com/en/insights/publications/2024/09/insights-practices-moving-away-from-open-source-trends-in-licensing
  92. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1007/s10664-021-09979-z
  93. https://www.bigdatawire.com/this-just-in/linux-foundation-welcomes-the-open-model-initiative-to-promote-openly-licensed-ai-models/
  94. https://liatbenzur.com/2025/07/20/data-moats-dead-new-competitive-advantages-ai/
  95. https://www.linuxfoundation.org/research/2025-state-of-commercial-open-source
  96. https://www.itprotoday.com/software-development/new-research-debunks-open-source-business-model-myths
  97. https://blog.serenacapital.com/the-commercial-open-source-report-2024-3b4a8b4ebd08
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.