This whole license flame war you've started is entirely unhelpful, and totally orthogonal to what you actually care about.
If parts of the code remain proprietary then this is Open Core and if they don't, it isn't. The licence doesn't enter into it.
Remember, the copyright holder is not bound by the GPL. And in this case external contributors are required to sign the Apache CLA[1]. So it is a permissive project as far as the original developers are concerned, and copyleft for everyone else. This is exactly the kind of situation that often leads to Open Core-like projects and proprietary vendor forks down the track, and is in no sense better for the user than if the code was permissively licensed for everyone.
[1] https://github.com/LightTable/LightTable/blob/master/CONTRIB...
BTW if the developers are reading, I find that description oversimplistic to the point of dishonesty. It is very unexpected that a GPL project would accept only Apache-licensed contributions, and your summary of the CA offers no hint that the developer is about to agree to it.
If parts of the code remain proprietary then this is Open Core and if they don't, it isn't. The licence doesn't enter into it.
Remember, the copyright holder is not bound by the GPL. And in this case external contributors are required to sign the Apache CLA[1]. So it is a permissive project as far as the original developers are concerned, and copyleft for everyone else. This is exactly the kind of situation that often leads to Open Core-like projects and proprietary vendor forks down the track, and is in no sense better for the user than if the code was permissively licensed for everyone.
[1] https://github.com/LightTable/LightTable/blob/master/CONTRIB... BTW if the developers are reading, I find that description oversimplistic to the point of dishonesty. It is very unexpected that a GPL project would accept only Apache-licensed contributions, and your summary of the CA offers no hint that the developer is about to agree to it.