> We'd like to be as open as possible while maintaining the ability to run a profitable business. This probably means some kind of "open core" model, where the editor is available under the GPL but other parts of our system remain proprietary. The timeline and exact strategy are still uncertain at this stage.
* It's a judgment call to call something open core open-source. This is my opinion. The "other parts of our system" makes it sound like vscode, which doesn't feel very open source now. https://ghuntley.com/fracture/
Yeah, the plan is to open-source the editor itself before we release 1.0. We will probably keep some part of the collaboration system closed-source, so that we can build our business around that feature set.
We have some work to do to decide exactly what will be closed source and separate that out from the rest of the application code.
