@gordonmessmer Anyway, as far as open core companies go, Gitlab is probably the gold standard. https://handbook.gitlab.com/handbook/company/stewardship/ is pretty solid, really.

@gordonmessmer

Too far outside of RH core competencies to be successful, I think. But, we should have spun it off into its own company ten years ago.

Gitlab's source-available proprietary model for "open core" is _worse_ than keeping that code secret, because it serves to poison community implementation of similar features.

@clacke @shanecurcuru

Thanks — it makes sense using those definitions. (It isn't the definitions we use in Fedora.)

@clacke @shanecurcuru

And I don't think all upstream projects use that exact definition consistently.

The Redis thing underscores a key point: _open source is not enough_. We need _community built software_ -- free and open source licenses are just one aspect of that.

If a company requires you to assign copyright (or equivalent re-licensing rights) in an asymmetrical way, they will inevitably eventually decide to take that option once they want to cash in on the goodwill you've built for them (let alone the code).

@shanecurcuru

I'm not really fond of that list.

Particularly:

* I don't think these are "levels", but rather some (but not all) aspects of openness.

* I don't see how "may accept contributions" relates to "open community" — I mean, they seem unrelated, not just a framing I would put differently

@shanecurcuru

Also: "adds contributors to become maintainers" doesn't make sense to me. Can you explain what that means and how it relates to governance?

And: a nonprofit foundation could own a brand and use and license it in a non-open way (and indeed, this is common — see Mozilla and LibreOffice). Conversely, a for-profit corporation or government entity could own a brand but have some form of open licensing or governance.

@shanecurcuru

"Apache" is another prominent example of non-open trademark control by a non-profit foundation.

@shanecurcuru

It's not *bad* — it's just not _open_.
https://apache.org/foundation/marks/faq/#products

(See also the "iceweasel" thing.)

@shanecurcuru

> Trademarks can't really be open the same way code is, but they can be managed for the public good, not for profit.

That's exactly my point. I don't think that's related to openness _per se_.

Also, I think that it is possible for entities other than non-profit to mange trademarks in this way.

@cabel

Can't argue with perfect, but it's be _even more perfect_ if it only used blocks and colors available at your birth year.