7 ms·

Is there anyone who can break down the advantage of something like this over a typical open source model? I read through the page and FAQ for fair source and st

Is there anyone who can break down the advantage of something like this over a typical open source model? I read through the page and FAQ for fair source and still don't quite grasp the angle here other than making software less free for a temporary amount of time.

gjsman-1000 2y ago
Simple - the standard open source business model sucks. Nobody donates, you’re in competition with the lowest common denominator when offering hosting services, and you might get ElasticSearched. The entire purpose of Fair Source is to allow companies to open up the code when they would have never considered it an option otherwise. It’s a more open license for companies that would’ve otherwise been proprietary without apology.
apantel 2y ago
The main benefit is you get a rolling two years where no one else can use your code to compete with you. It’s a lot like a patent which gives you a window of time where you have an exclusive right to benefit from your creation.
fishtoaster 2y ago
An increasingly common situation for open source projects is: 1. The FooLabs company creates the Foo open source software, which gets popular 2. FooLabs offers FooCloud, a paid, hosted, managed version of Foo for those who don't want to run Foo themselves. 3. AWS sees that Foo is popular and creates a competing paid, hosted, managed version of Foo (say, "AwsFoo"). 4. FooLabs' hosted version doesn't really have much advantage over AWS and AWS has a huge base of existing customers, so it outcompetes FooLabs. 5. FooLabs perceives this as unfair. They did all the work creating + maintaining this software, but are unable to reap any rewards. Different people have different opinions on #5, ranging from "Hell yeah, screw AWS!" to "What did you expect when you made this open source?" As a result, there have been a wave of not-quite-open-source licenses aimed at preventing #3, often with a clause like "This license doesn't let you run a paid, hosted, managed version". GitButler's license is aimed at doing exactly that. People have been calling that "source available." Some people are trying to rebrand that as the cooler-sounding "Fair Source." Some of these have caused huge community upsets because Foo is often popular because it's open source, and it feels like a bait-and-switch to suddenly yank that away once Foo reaches a certain point of growth. ElasticSearch is the biggest example that comes to mind: https://www.elastic.co/blog/licensing-change https://www.elastic.co/blog/licensing-change. GitButler, thankfully, is being much more up-front about it!
- paxys 2y ago
  You forgot 1.1 – FooLabs takes hundreds of millions of dollars in VC funding and these VCs want to see a 10x return on their investment, which is incompatible with keeping the software free and open source.
  - somebodythere 2y ago
    Sure. Presumably also the developers at FooLabs would like to continue having a job developing Foo, and the broader software community would like to continue benefiting from additional features and improvements to Foo, which probably wouldn't happen if developing Foo was economically unviable.
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
  I think some of the tension is that: > 2. FooLabs offers FooCloud, a paid, hosted, managed version of Foo for those who don't want to run Foo themselves. > 4. FooLabs' hosted version doesn't really have much advantage over AWS and AWS has a huge base of existing customers, so it outcompetes FooLabs. FooCloud is often run with what is perceived as excessive costs/margins, so 1. they get really poor uptake, and 2. it's really easy for AWS to undercut them.
  - snotrockets 2y ago
    (I'd rather not discuss the tension described and am going to be vauge on purpose, as I work on SaaS that has multiple completing services from other providers) Some SaaS, when operated by a vendor also selling IaaS, is sold at so low cost over the IaaS, that it doesn't matter how cheaply other vendors can build on top of that same IaaS, they could never compete on price.
- escapecharacter 2y ago
  I’m trying to find a clear distinction between “Source Available” and “Fair Source”. Sounds like there isn’t any common definition for source available other than that you are allowed to read the code.
ensignavenger 2y ago
Fair Source licenses place restrictions on how code can be used (for a "limited" time) in order to prevent others from using the code to compete with the corporate sponsors of the Fair Source code. It isn't clear what restrictions will be allowed and still qualify as a "Fair Source" license. The first Fair Source license is the Functional Source License, which converts to Open Source after 2 years. It places restrictions on using the code to offer any commercial product or service that competes with the corporate sponsor. If you choose to adopt such software, you will be unable to switch vendors for hosting, technical support or assistance, or any other service which the corporate sponsor offers in any way. The corporate sponsor can raise rates, offer terrible service, or otherwise do a bad job of supporting your business and the only alternative you will have is to adopt a different product (with all of the integration and development efforts that takes) or to self host and self support the product. You will be unable to engage a new vendor, at least for two years from the release of the version you are reliant on. Also, if you contribute to a Fair Source product you will likely be forced to sign a CLA that grants rights to the corporate sponsor ponsor that go beyond the rights that you recieve under the license. As you can see, I feel that Open Source is a much better model that better protects users, contributors, and community members of software.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  > As you can see, I feel that Open Source is a much better model that better protects users, contributors, and community members of software. Assuming that said vendor was even going to open-source in the first place. I would take Windows, Affinity, macOS, Adobe, literally any major software project under the FSL any day. Realistically, the companies that FSL appeals to, were never going to consider open-sourcing to begin with.
  - ensignavenger 2y ago
    If the vendor doesn't go open source, I will look for an open source alternative. If none is available, I will consider building one. Only after researching those options would I consider a propeietary or "Fair" source product. And I would be very careful with how I integrate such a product into my business. So yeah, if there are no good open source alternatives and building my own would be cost prohibitive, I might consider a Fair Source product.

gjsman-1000 2y ago

Simple - the standard open source business model sucks. Nobody donates, you’re in competition with the lowest common denominator when offering hosting services, and you might get ElasticSearched. The entire purpose of Fair Source is to allow companies to open up the code when they would have never considered it an option otherwise. It’s a more open license for companies that would’ve otherwise been proprietary without apology.

apantel 2y ago

The main benefit is you get a rolling two years where no one else can use your code to compete with you. It’s a lot like a patent which gives you a window of time where you have an exclusive right to benefit from your creation.

fishtoaster 2y ago

An increasingly common situation for open source projects is: 1. The FooLabs company creates the Foo open source software, which gets popular 2. FooLabs offers FooCloud, a paid, hosted, managed version of Foo for those who don't want to run Foo themselves. 3. AWS sees that Foo is popular and creates a competing paid, hosted, managed version of Foo (say, "AwsFoo"). 4. FooLabs' hosted version doesn't really have much advantage over AWS and AWS has a huge base of existing customers, so it outcompetes FooLabs. 5. FooLabs perceives this as unfair. They did all the work creating + maintaining this software, but are unable to reap any rewards. Different people have different opinions on #5, ranging from "Hell yeah, screw AWS!" to "What did you expect when you made this open source?" As a result, there have been a wave of not-quite-open-source licenses aimed at preventing #3, often with a clause like "This license doesn't let you run a paid, hosted, managed version". GitButler's license is aimed at doing exactly that. People have been calling that "source available." Some people are trying to rebrand that as the cooler-sounding "Fair Source." Some of these have caused huge community upsets because Foo is often popular because it's open source, and it feels like a bait-and-switch to suddenly yank that away once Foo reaches a certain point of growth. ElasticSearch is the biggest example that comes to mind: https://www.elastic.co/blog/licensing-change https://www.elastic.co/blog/licensing-change. GitButler, thankfully, is being much more up-front about it!

paxys 2y ago
You forgot 1.1 – FooLabs takes hundreds of millions of dollars in VC funding and these VCs want to see a 10x return on their investment, which is incompatible with keeping the software free and open source.
- somebodythere 2y ago
  Sure. Presumably also the developers at FooLabs would like to continue having a job developing Foo, and the broader software community would like to continue benefiting from additional features and improvements to Foo, which probably wouldn't happen if developing Foo was economically unviable.
yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
I think some of the tension is that: > 2. FooLabs offers FooCloud, a paid, hosted, managed version of Foo for those who don't want to run Foo themselves. > 4. FooLabs' hosted version doesn't really have much advantage over AWS and AWS has a huge base of existing customers, so it outcompetes FooLabs. FooCloud is often run with what is perceived as excessive costs/margins, so 1. they get really poor uptake, and 2. it's really easy for AWS to undercut them.
- snotrockets 2y ago
  (I'd rather not discuss the tension described and am going to be vauge on purpose, as I work on SaaS that has multiple completing services from other providers) Some SaaS, when operated by a vendor also selling IaaS, is sold at so low cost over the IaaS, that it doesn't matter how cheaply other vendors can build on top of that same IaaS, they could never compete on price.
escapecharacter 2y ago
I’m trying to find a clear distinction between “Source Available” and “Fair Source”. Sounds like there isn’t any common definition for source available other than that you are allowed to read the code.

ensignavenger 2y ago

Fair Source licenses place restrictions on how code can be used (for a "limited" time) in order to prevent others from using the code to compete with the corporate sponsors of the Fair Source code. It isn't clear what restrictions will be allowed and still qualify as a "Fair Source" license. The first Fair Source license is the Functional Source License, which converts to Open Source after 2 years. It places restrictions on using the code to offer any commercial product or service that competes with the corporate sponsor. If you choose to adopt such software, you will be unable to switch vendors for hosting, technical support or assistance, or any other service which the corporate sponsor offers in any way. The corporate sponsor can raise rates, offer terrible service, or otherwise do a bad job of supporting your business and the only alternative you will have is to adopt a different product (with all of the integration and development efforts that takes) or to self host and self support the product. You will be unable to engage a new vendor, at least for two years from the release of the version you are reliant on. Also, if you contribute to a Fair Source product you will likely be forced to sign a CLA that grants rights to the corporate sponsor ponsor that go beyond the rights that you recieve under the license. As you can see, I feel that Open Source is a much better model that better protects users, contributors, and community members of software.

gjsman-1000 2y ago
> As you can see, I feel that Open Source is a much better model that better protects users, contributors, and community members of software. Assuming that said vendor was even going to open-source in the first place. I would take Windows, Affinity, macOS, Adobe, literally any major software project under the FSL any day. Realistically, the companies that FSL appeals to, were never going to consider open-sourcing to begin with.
- ensignavenger 2y ago
  If the vendor doesn't go open source, I will look for an open source alternative. If none is available, I will consider building one. Only after researching those options would I consider a propeietary or "Fair" source product. And I would be very careful with how I integrate such a product into my business. So yeah, if there are no good open source alternatives and building my own would be cost prohibitive, I might consider a Fair Source product.