3 ms·

We definitely need a term, more accurate than source-available, that describes software whose usage and improvements can only orbit in non-commercial space. Fo

We definitely need a term, more accurate than source-available, that describes software whose usage and improvements can only orbit in non-commercial space. For non-software creative works, we have Creative Commons NonCommercial licenses.

whit537 2y ago
Yes! We aim to launch https://fair.io/ https://fair.io/ next month to promote the term Fair Source for this purpose. Early feedback is guardedly positive, e.g., ESR's take was "very clever." https://openpath.chadwhitacre.com/2024/the-historical-case-for-fair-source/#early-feedback-is-guardedly-positive https://openpath.chadwhitacre.com/2024/the-historical-case-f...
brunoqc 2y ago
Why? We all know what "source available" mean and that it's not really open-source.
- card_zero 2y ago
  Somehow you've all established this phrase with the adjective after the noun. I guess it's stuck like that now. "This software is source-available" as in "this chicken is range-free".
  - narism 2y ago
    AKA the postpositive adjective. I do wish they had gone with Available Source Software for the acronym possibilities.
- abdullahkhalids 2y ago
  Because you can 1. Release the source only for the purpose of studying it. Say some scientific software library's source available so you can check the details of the algorithm. 2. Release the source, and allow you to make improvements to it, but not give any further distribution rights. 3. Release the source, and allow non-commercial users to improve the source and distribute those improvements to other non-commercial users. 4. Release under some dual license. 5. Release under certified Open Source licenses. I would say, most people would only label 1 or 2 as "source available". Over the past few years 3 and 4 are becoming more popular (for whatever reasons - good or bad). So 3 should have a name as well.
  - zem 2y ago
    there was another excellent one i saw on HN a few months ago - the game "even the ocean" was open sourced to a great extent, somewhere between 3 and 4 on your list. repeating my comment about it: honestly, i wish the spirit behind that license were easier to formalise and publish - it roughly says "look, this is a game i made and am selling, and i don't want people taking this repo and just cloning the game for free. but we are a community of people making games, and i would love to provide the code and other assets as building blocks that will let other people make their own games more easily." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37626382 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37626382
  - josephcsible 2y ago
    3 is absolutely only "source available". For 4, if either of the licenses are open source, then the overall thing is too, but otherwise it's also only "source available".
cxr 2y ago
> We have definitely need a term, more accurate than source-available I think you mean more marketable. "Source available" is extremely accurate and descriptive. It's not as sexy, though, and that's the real reason people in favor of broadening what "open source" means don't like to use the available alternatives that actually apply. They want the shine of "open source" without having to meet the criteria. This isn't a problem of language. It's a problem of a group motivated by self-interests wanting something that is directly at odds with what their marks want. Not unlike, for example, used car dealers wanting to put their ads in the "for sale by owner" section and being unhappy about being excluded because it means because of all the people who will only see ads by folks who aren't dealers, when that's the whole point. See also: men who can't hit on women in spaces where men aren't allowed.

whit537 2y ago

Yes! We aim to launch https://fair.io/ https://fair.io/ next month to promote the term Fair Source for this purpose. Early feedback is guardedly positive, e.g., ESR's take was "very clever." https://openpath.chadwhitacre.com/2024/the-historical-case-for-fair-source/#early-feedback-is-guardedly-positive https://openpath.chadwhitacre.com/2024/the-historical-case-f...

brunoqc 2y ago

Why? We all know what "source available" mean and that it's not really open-source.

card_zero 2y ago
Somehow you've all established this phrase with the adjective after the noun. I guess it's stuck like that now. "This software is source-available" as in "this chicken is range-free".
- narism 2y ago
  AKA the postpositive adjective. I do wish they had gone with Available Source Software for the acronym possibilities.
abdullahkhalids 2y ago
Because you can 1. Release the source only for the purpose of studying it. Say some scientific software library's source available so you can check the details of the algorithm. 2. Release the source, and allow you to make improvements to it, but not give any further distribution rights. 3. Release the source, and allow non-commercial users to improve the source and distribute those improvements to other non-commercial users. 4. Release under some dual license. 5. Release under certified Open Source licenses. I would say, most people would only label 1 or 2 as "source available". Over the past few years 3 and 4 are becoming more popular (for whatever reasons - good or bad). So 3 should have a name as well.
- zem 2y ago
  there was another excellent one i saw on HN a few months ago - the game "even the ocean" was open sourced to a great extent, somewhere between 3 and 4 on your list. repeating my comment about it: honestly, i wish the spirit behind that license were easier to formalise and publish - it roughly says "look, this is a game i made and am selling, and i don't want people taking this repo and just cloning the game for free. but we are a community of people making games, and i would love to provide the code and other assets as building blocks that will let other people make their own games more easily." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37626382 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37626382
- josephcsible 2y ago
  3 is absolutely only "source available". For 4, if either of the licenses are open source, then the overall thing is too, but otherwise it's also only "source available".

cxr 2y ago

> We have definitely need a term, more accurate than source-available I think you mean more marketable. "Source available" is extremely accurate and descriptive. It's not as sexy, though, and that's the real reason people in favor of broadening what "open source" means don't like to use the available alternatives that actually apply. They want the shine of "open source" without having to meet the criteria. This isn't a problem of language. It's a problem of a group motivated by self-interests wanting something that is directly at odds with what their marks want. Not unlike, for example, used car dealers wanting to put their ads in the "for sale by owner" section and being unhappy about being excluded because it means because of all the people who will only see ads by folks who aren't dealers, when that's the whole point. See also: men who can't hit on women in spaces where men aren't allowed.