They say they have a closed source hosted offering, and an open source self-hosted offering.
It's fair to call the overall approach something like 'open core' or 'source available', but when you offer the open core under a license like AGPL, it think it's pretty hard to claim that isn't open source.
When you offer a subset of the product as open, and a subset as not open, its not open source. Pretty simple math for me.
This is not a comment on "which" OSI license they used for the open part, but I will not support people calling Open Core broadly Open Source, as its not.
They say they have a closed source hosted offering, and an open source self-hosted offering.
It's fair to call the overall approach something like 'open core' or 'source available', but when you offer the open core under a license like AGPL, it think it's pretty hard to claim that isn't open source.