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]
Some open-core products require their contributors to sign acontributor license agreement, which either dictates that the copyright of all contributions to the productbecome 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]
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 engineBlink and the open source web browserChromium, but includes proprietary software that probably collects user data for use in their advertising business.
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]
Oracle'sMySQL database software is dual-licensed under a proprietary license, and theGNU General Public License (GPL); proprietary versions offer additional features and enterprise support plans.[12]
Oracle VM VirtualBox isGNU GPL-licensed, but some features, such as encryption and remote display, requireOracle's closed-source Extension Pack.[13]
Elastic's core, which includes Elasticsearch, Kibana, Logstash and Beats, was under anApache 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-freeServer Side Public License and Elastic License, which restrict use of the software as part ofmanaged services, and circumvention ofsoftware locks on premium features.[15] This means it is no longer open core, butsource available-software.
Eucalyptus, private cloud software, has a proprietary enterprise edition which provides additional features.[16][17][18]
Neo4j CE (Community Edition) is licensed under GPL version 3, while Neo4j EE (Enterprise Edition) is under aproprietary 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 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 bycloudapplication service providers such asAmazon 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 theGNU 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 ofThe 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] TheOpen 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, andRed 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 itsRedis plugins subject to the "Commons Clause", a restriction on sale of the software on top of the existingApache License terms. After criticism, this was changed in 2019 to the "RedisSource 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 wereforked 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 asValkey) had differentiated themselves enough to allow Redis to "compete on product".[32]
A similar move was made whenHashiCorp switched to the non-free Business Source License (BSL) on its products, includingTerraform, which received theLinux Foundation-backed fork OpenTofu.[33]
In September 2024,WP Engine—a hosting provider that uses the free and open sourceWordPress software—began to face criticism fromMatt Mullenweg—the founder of the project's corporate sponsorAutomattic, and owner of the competitorWordPress.com. During a presentation and blog post, he criticized WP Engine over inadequate upstream contributions, disabling of features, private equity funding, andtrademark 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 acease 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 theGNU 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 fordefamation andextortion.[37]
^Wasserman, Anthony I. (2011)."How the Internet transformed the software industry".Journal of Internet Services and Applications.2 (1):11–22.doi:10.1007/s13174-011-0019-x.ISSN1867-4828.Some companies have only a single version of their software, while others follow an "open core" model, providing a community release of the core version, and offering proprietary premium features using a commercial license.
^Bort, Julie (22 June 2010)."Marten Mickos says open source doesn't have to be fully open". Network World. Retrieved19 February 2016."We deliver a fully functional cloud with Eucalyptus software. You can download it on a GPL v3 license. But, additionally, we provide enterprise features only if you pay for them ... it's open core," he says.
^Jackson, Jacob (25 August 2010)."Eucalyptus Strengthens Its Back End". PCWorld. Retrieved19 February 2016.To make money, Eucalyptus Systems uses an open-core business model, offering one version of the software free through an open-source license and selling a commercial version with support and additional features ...
^"LICENSE.md".GitHub. FunkinCrew. Retrieved26 October 2025.The Friday Night Funkin' source code is licensed under the Apache 2.0 license...
^"FunkinCrew/funkin.assets – License".GitHub. FunkinCrew. Retrieved26 October 2025.This game's Content is proprietary and protected by national and international copyright and trademark laws, and may not be publicly distributed for free or for profit by anyone but the copyright owner. 'Content' includes but is not limited to the art, visual assets, audio assets, sound effects, music, and any other creative works.
