2 ms·

The problem with "source-available" is that it has no real definition and it conveys no user freedoms at all outside of the loose freedom to read the source cod

• woodruffw 2y ago
  > The problem with "source-available" is that it has no real definition and it conveys no user freedoms at all outside of the loose freedom to read the source code, which is why the term has never taken off with anybody. It's wholly inadequate. I don't particularly disagree; I'll just observe that calling your particular flavor of source availability the "fair" flavor is a leading characterization that people who do OSS (either for fun or professionally) aren't necessarily going to agree with. Concretely: I found the terms of the FCL[1], and one of the restraining terms of "competing use" against the "business interests" of the author. Any half-competent attorney could use this to argue that virtually any change, including basic security fixes, would harm the original author's business interests by reducing the relative competitiveness of their version. That doesn't strike me as very fair: as a security person in OSS, I don't want to be punished with lawsuits for trying to remove security problems from the projects I rely on. > It's definitely not trying to be a "pseudo-open-source." [...] It's a new term to clearly communicate something that's close to Open Source Can you explain why these sentences aren't contradictory? Please understand that I'm not using "pseudo" to mean something negative; I meant that it's clear you're attempting to adapt some of the features of OSS licensing into something that isn't itself OSS. That isn't a bad thing in my book, but I do think the "fair" labeling and repeated reference to the specific properties of OSS that FSS finds desirable is essentially obfuscatory. [1]: https://fcl.dev/ https://fcl.dev/
  • ezekg 2y ago
    I think "psuedo-open-source" and "close to Open Source" convey something vastly different. The former implies, by definition, that it's fake Open Source, i.e. what most would call "open-washing." Fair Source was literally created from a CTA to stop open-washing [0]. We can absolutely say that Fair Source is close to Open Source without claiming it is Open Source, because it is close to Open Source if we look at raw user freedoms, and especially if we compare it to the typical understanding of source-available and closed-source. It's helpful to visualize these differences on a gradient. Fair Source is literally on the cusp of Open Source when visualizing that gradient, and even becomes Open Source. [0]: https://x.com/adamhjk/status/1687113805237714944 https://x.com/adamhjk/status/1687113805237714944
    • woodruffw 2y ago
      > I think "psuedo-open-source" and Fair Source convey something vastly different. Yes, that was my point: someone who doesn't know anything about "Fair Source" might have reasonable value associations about the word "Fair" that aren't actually present in the terms of the FSL. In particular, being constrained from making any sort of modification that could potentially be a competitive risk for the original author is both a massive poison pill and is not consistent with what OSS people typically consider to be "fair" (or compatible with received notions of software freedom). The basic version of my argument is this: if it was named the "Eventually Open Source But Currently Not License," there would be no value judgment to be concerned about here. But the use of "Fair" is clearly meant to communicate a normative position that, in reality, muddies the waters and dilutes the benefit to the commons by maintaining the author's interests. And this is fine (IMO), as long as it isn't obscured by words like "fair."