> 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"

> 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."