Yeah the commercialization model is not perfect yet. Ideally the community edition should include all normal features required for personal use. Would that only be like one machine to connect to or many? I was planning to experiment with allowing a few connections where a license would be required in the community version.

Yeah I can understand why some people feel that way. Originally this closed part only concerned a very small part, but due to necessary subclassing of that implementation, that kinda evolved to the whole shell handling interface. I always wanted to refactor that aspect and decouple it such that these parts can be included in this repository, but never got around to it.

Maybe in the future this can be properly addressed because it’s more a matter of a not well thought out structure rather than hiding crazy secret implementation details. The whole project’s vision moved around quite a lot and most stuff was conceptioned before there was even a thought to try to sell it.

I see your points. In the end it boils down to the fact that there is no clear split between free and paid features in the codebase itself due to the chosen commercialization model. The paywall that is in place right now is mostly artificial because the code is the same for all systems. So even if I wanted to, I could not implement the classic open core model with a fully open source base version. I could have used a different approach to start out, e.g. only locking certain features behind a license and not certain remote systems like it is currently done. That would have probably allowed me to implement the more classic open core model. But the current model also has its advantages in other areas.

You can just ship your own version of the repo if you want due to the apache license. To properly run this the user would however still need the regular xpipe installation which contains some parts that you would still need to properly make use of it. I think the term basic core functionality can be interpreted differently here. So if you are talking about being able to use all the nice features that make xpipe stand out, then yes these non-open-source components are necessary for core functionality. If you are just talking about being able to run the application and do limited things with it, then they are not.

Yeah maybe the term open core is not the best way to describe it as it doesn’t entirely fit the pattern. I’m open for better suggestions where I can still somehow highlight that most of the application is open source (in terms of LOC, it is around 90% in that repo)

From your description I would say yes.

You always have to fiddle around a bit with SSH jumps and fowards as there are two different ways in xpipe to handle that. You also have to take care of your authentication maybe with agent forwarding etc. if you use keys. But I’m confident that you can make this work with the new custom SSH connections in xpipe as that allows you to do basically anything with SSH.

In summary, there are a few components not included in the public repository, mainly because it is very difficult in practice to get people to pay for a 100% open source tool where they can just clone it and remove any license requirement in a few lines. So it is not a fully Apache licensed application, it’s core is. There is only one release version so it is difficult to provide a separate apache-only installer, mainly for technical implementation reasons. Some codebases can’t be perfectly split into free and non-free parts that can be shipped separately. These not included components are the license handling implementation, the low-level shell process handling implementation, and the CI/CD scripts for distribution.

The EULA is just standard terms like don’t try to circumvent the license requirement, if you buy a license don’t share it with other people, some warranty and liability stuff, etc.

If you build a development version from source, it requires to have another xpipe installation present where it can utilize some of the shipped components from it. But you can fully run and modify that development version. They are not necessary for basic core functionality but it doesn’t work without it as the license requirement could be disabled easily then as I mentioned before.

Overall I think this split is the best solution considering all factors. I understand that some open-source proponents don’t like that. But I think since the application core is open source, it still has the good effect of establishing trust because anyone can take a look at how your data is handled internally, which is especially important in this context where a lot of sensitive information is used.

It’s not really related at all.

It is basically a graphical wrapper around your CLI tools like ssh, docker, kubectl, and more that gives you the features you know from tools like graphical SFTP clients but supports much more types of connections and allows you to use your favourite terminal and editor for your remote connections.