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.
Yes, I know. I actually read it (which is rare) and it's mostly sensible stuff. The "no reverse engineering" clause just felt weird in something that claims to be "mostly open source".
In the end I find it slightly misleading to call this open-core when the app with just the non-commercial features can't be built full from the published source.
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.
I don't quite understand this argument. If I can build a development version I can run any and all code in the repo (while providing an existing xpipe installation) and somehow I would be able to ship this, if I had criminal energies, so how exactly does this requirement prevent that?
In other words: if the only way to access the commercial features without a license is by doing something illegal then ... that's not really adding much burden, is it?
In the end I'm probably just one of the open-source proponents that don't like that, and that's fine. Not everyone needs to agree with everyone, there's a lot of space here where reasonable minds can disagree. I just think that claiming "the main application is open source" when it can't be built purely from the source is a bit misleading.