Matt Aslett on the Nuxeo vs Pentaho debate
Mat Aslett at the 451 Group has weighed in on the recent postings and comments between myself and the folks at Nuxeo, in a post – Let he who is without proprietary features cast the first stone
Matt raises some good points in a well balanced approach. Matt comes down on the side of Nuxeo not being open core, but not pure play either:
My own feeling is that Nuxeo’s approach is not open core, since the original definition of open core concerned proprietary products. However, the existence of Nuxeo Studio means that Nuxeo is clearly not 100% open source.
But he doesn’t have a term for what their model is, and is proposing adding a new one to their list:
For that reason, I have come to believe that we need to add a new revenue trigger category to our open source business strategy model, that makes a clear distinction between support subscriptions for 100% open source code, and value-add subscriptions that offer additional hosted services.
As yet, no-one is able to answer my question – if Pentaho stopped offering on-premise deployments and only provided a SaaS offering, would we no longer be open core? Maybe the answer is this new category that Matt mentions.
It looks to me like this model is close to an open core model – just hosted, not on-premise. But the term ‘open core’ does not specify how the non-open parts are deployed, just that some code is open source and some is not. So should we just create sub-categories of open core?
- Open core (on-premise), and open core (hosted)
- Local open core, and remote open core?