4 ms·
> I am not a lawyer myself, but the "hypothetical loophole" scenario you described would involve you making a derivative work of our code—kind of like photocopy
by ultramancool 11y ago
> I am not a lawyer myself, but the "hypothetical loophole" scenario you described would involve you making a derivative work of our code—kind of like photocopying Harry Potter and adding some doodles in the margins, and reselling that.
So you're comparing someone who forked your project to add what could be major features, to someone doodling in the margins of Harry Potter? That's a really optimistic view of the open source community there. But I understand what you're saying, I'm just used to forks being a common practice in the FOSS community, so I expected them to be better accounted for.
You still haven't made it clear what would happen in the case of a fork. Even if they kept it under your license, who gets the money? How do they get paid? How are terms agreed to? Can it not be forked at all?
EDIT: This really applies to any modifications, essentially, say I make some modifications to your code, under what terms am I allowed to distribute them? Is the only way I can go to license them back to you without seeing any of this "fair" profit myself? What if you don't like them and decide not to use them can I redistribute them for free or fee on my own? Is there any way to make the forking and distribution of modifications as casual as it is with so many open source projects under other licenses today?
- sqs 11y agoSourcegraph CEO here. Fair Source is not an open-source license. It is intended to be an improvement over closed source (GitHub, Bitbucket, etc.) and open core (where many important bits are closed source). Fair Source is not intended to support forking and independent redistribution. If you fork a Fair Source-licensed project and try to distribute it, users would have to also acquire a license from the original author.
- durin42 11y agoI mentioned this over on lobste.rs, but I'll mention it here in brief: fair.io does a really bad job of stating this intent. The elevator pitch mentions open source but not proprietary. Please consider rewording fair.io to be clearer about the non-open-source intent here.
- beliu 11y agoThanks for this suggestion. We want to make it clear that Fair Source is not Open Source. We've updated the summary in the header: https://fair.io https://fair.io. Hope this is clearer!
- dragonwriter 11y agoYou still make the false claim that "The Fair Source License works just like an open-source license when the usage is below the Use Limitation." Fair Source never works like an Open Source license. It works like (because it is) a source-available proprietary license which allows local (but not redistributed) modifications. Below the use limitation, it is also a free-of-cost license. But it never works like an Open Source license, and it doesn't even work more like an Open Source license below the Use Limitation.
- lucaspiller 11y agoI was a bit confused at first, but this explanation makes a lot of sense. Please put it somewhere prominent on the Fair Source page.
- ultramancool 11y agoAccording to fair.io: > Fair Source License functions just like an open-source license with the only restriction being that I can't use it with over X employees in my company. If what you're saying is true then I'd highly suggest you reword that, in reality it functions just like a proprietary license except that I can look at the source and maybe send patches to you. More similar to that of the proprietary JIRA (which will give you source when you buy it) than the open source Gitlab.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]