This is a complicated license, and the only thing I could think of while reading it was "cui bono?"
The community isn't getting your contributions, or the ability to contribute back. They're not able to fully modify the program for their use-case, or create a superior version to what is provided officially. Potential users can audit the program, but that's only useful insofar as they intend to become a customer for it.
Is "paranoiaware" a good descriptor for such licenses? I don't think I've ever worked somewhere that gave these "open core" projects a second thought.
> They're not able to fully modify the program for their use-case, or create a superior version to what is provided.
What license are you reading? Let's not jump to conclusions. The FCL allows you to read, use, modify, and redistribute for nearly any use case aside from direct competition and circumventing the license key functionality (i.e. giving yourself EE features in CE when self-hosting). And then it becomes Open Source under Apache or MIT after 2 years, after which you can do what you will without prior restrictions. I believe the FCL, as well as the FSL it's derived from, is incredibly clear and permissive.
The community isn't getting your contributions, or the ability to contribute back. They're not able to fully modify the program for their use-case, or create a superior version to what is provided officially. Potential users can audit the program, but that's only useful insofar as they intend to become a customer for it.
Is "paranoiaware" a good descriptor for such licenses? I don't think I've ever worked somewhere that gave these "open core" projects a second thought.