5 ms·

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 corpor

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.
  - solidsnack9000 2y ago
    This approach is not available to most people most of the time, so it's not going to make a difference.
    - ensignavenger 2y ago
      I'm not sure what you mean by this? I would guess from my own experience that there are open source alternatives to the majority of software. Often the open source software is just as good or better.
    - talldayo 2y ago
      It's available to everyone, all of the time. Anyone can do it, which is why you actually see forking and custom tooling quite frequently in businesses at-scale. It's absolutely bewildering that someone would say "it's not going to make a difference" when half of the market for B2B software is literally predicated on the existence of more permissive tooling. Licensing is practically the only thing that matters besides security and functionality when evaluating software.
the_mitsuhiko 2y ago
> It isn't clear what restrictions will be allowed and still qualify as a "Fair Source" license We called that out on the website though: Fair Source Software (FSS): * is publicly available to read; * allows use, modification, and redistribution with minimal restrictions to protect the producer’s business model; and * undergoes delayed Open Source publication (DOSP). The delayed open source publication part is explicit.
- ezekg 2y ago
  In addition, underneath the definition, we touch on that even more: > The intention is for the first point to be a bright line, and for the second to invite exploration. We expect Fair Source licenses to emerge and evolve and shake out into a few clear winners over time, as companies apply Fair Source within their own particular business context. The third point is also intended as a bright line, and a key differentiator of Fair Source from Open Core and other approaches. The key line is to "invite exploration."
  - ensignavenger 2y ago
    Thank you for pointing that out, I did a quick read through of that part and missed the intention behind it. I also found the Readme which helps explain the direction things are going. (https://github.com/fairsource/fair.io/blob/main/README.md https://github.com/fairsource/fair.io/blob/main/README.md)
- ensignavenger 2y ago
  "minimal restrictions to protect the producer’s business model" That isn't very clear to me. Does every license author or licensor get to decide for themselves whether or not a license is Fair Source, or whether or not a limitation is "minimal"? Honestly, I don't think the limitations in the Functional Source License are "minimal". But others clearly believe they are. The delayed part is explicit... but could a license that delays release to open source for 1,000 years be considered "fair source"? It is a DOSP as you say? I understand that the Fair Source branding movement is still young and is likely evolving policies and procedures, but those are some of the questions I already see coming up when discussing whether or not a license is Fair Source. It may take a while for the definition to mature.
solidsnack9000 2y ago
All of the points you raise would be too if the project were simply a proprietary product, too. We're not worse off for having to deal with them for two years instead of forever.
- ensignavenger 2y ago
  No doubt that Fair Source and other eventually open source products are better than never open source products. Absolutely! And if Fair Source succeeds in getting more developers to release code, even if the code is 2 years old, as open source, I am all for it. I just want a clear understanding of what it is and what it isn't and what makes it different from open source.

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.
- solidsnack9000 2y ago
  This approach is not available to most people most of the time, so it's not going to make a difference.
  - ensignavenger 2y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean by this? I would guess from my own experience that there are open source alternatives to the majority of software. Often the open source software is just as good or better.
  - talldayo 2y ago
    It's available to everyone, all of the time. Anyone can do it, which is why you actually see forking and custom tooling quite frequently in businesses at-scale. It's absolutely bewildering that someone would say "it's not going to make a difference" when half of the market for B2B software is literally predicated on the existence of more permissive tooling. Licensing is practically the only thing that matters besides security and functionality when evaluating software.

the_mitsuhiko 2y ago

> It isn't clear what restrictions will be allowed and still qualify as a "Fair Source" license We called that out on the website though: Fair Source Software (FSS): * is publicly available to read; * allows use, modification, and redistribution with minimal restrictions to protect the producer’s business model; and * undergoes delayed Open Source publication (DOSP). The delayed open source publication part is explicit.

ezekg 2y ago
In addition, underneath the definition, we touch on that even more: > The intention is for the first point to be a bright line, and for the second to invite exploration. We expect Fair Source licenses to emerge and evolve and shake out into a few clear winners over time, as companies apply Fair Source within their own particular business context. The third point is also intended as a bright line, and a key differentiator of Fair Source from Open Core and other approaches. The key line is to "invite exploration."
- ensignavenger 2y ago
  Thank you for pointing that out, I did a quick read through of that part and missed the intention behind it. I also found the Readme which helps explain the direction things are going. (https://github.com/fairsource/fair.io/blob/main/README.md https://github.com/fairsource/fair.io/blob/main/README.md)
ensignavenger 2y ago
"minimal restrictions to protect the producer’s business model" That isn't very clear to me. Does every license author or licensor get to decide for themselves whether or not a license is Fair Source, or whether or not a limitation is "minimal"? Honestly, I don't think the limitations in the Functional Source License are "minimal". But others clearly believe they are. The delayed part is explicit... but could a license that delays release to open source for 1,000 years be considered "fair source"? It is a DOSP as you say? I understand that the Fair Source branding movement is still young and is likely evolving policies and procedures, but those are some of the questions I already see coming up when discussing whether or not a license is Fair Source. It may take a while for the definition to mature.

solidsnack9000 2y ago

All of the points you raise would be too if the project were simply a proprietary product, too. We're not worse off for having to deal with them for two years instead of forever.

ensignavenger 2y ago
No doubt that Fair Source and other eventually open source products are better than never open source products. Absolutely! And if Fair Source succeeds in getting more developers to release code, even if the code is 2 years old, as open source, I am all for it. I just want a clear understanding of what it is and what it isn't and what makes it different from open source.