The author says "I'm a firm believer in free software."
I interpret that as someone who has a firm belief that proprietary software is immoral, or at the very least, distasteful.
That would include being opposed to the proprietary add-ons of an open core.
And that would be a reason to leave money on the table. (Analogously , I have a relative who owned a grocery store and refused to sell tobacco products, believing that doing so was immoral.)
In general, I think open core is an advertising model. In broad strokes: "Free software" uses a moral argument against proprietary software. "Open source" uses a cost/benefits argument that open source development is more effective than proprietary. "Open Core" uses the profits from proprietary add-ons to subsidize the open source component, which is the loss-leader marketing the proprietary add-ons.
I interpret that as someone who has a firm belief that proprietary software is immoral, or at the very least, distasteful.
That would include being opposed to the proprietary add-ons of an open core.
And that would be a reason to leave money on the table. (Analogously , I have a relative who owned a grocery store and refused to sell tobacco products, believing that doing so was immoral.)
In general, I think open core is an advertising model. In broad strokes: "Free software" uses a moral argument against proprietary software. "Open source" uses a cost/benefits argument that open source development is more effective than proprietary. "Open Core" uses the profits from proprietary add-ons to subsidize the open source component, which is the loss-leader marketing the proprietary add-ons.