3 ms·

I don't love the name. It was hard to put my finger on why that is. It doesn't smell of marketing (a whiff, maybe), I don't think it's dishonest, it strikes me

I don't love the name. It was hard to put my finger on why that is. It doesn't smell of marketing (a whiff, maybe), I don't think it's dishonest, it strikes me as a sincere way of trying to explain why the users/authors feel like they need to do anything other than just give the software away. It's that there's an inevitable comparison baked in to the choice of name: we have open source, and fair source. Fair source is meaningfully less open, but open source is at least equally fair, one can argue that it's more so, but not less. It doesn't really hit at the reason for having these licenses in the first place, and it does have a sort of aura of "see! We're trying, we're doing our best over here", which is accurate, but also, off-putting. I have a suggestion, not that I expect it to matter: first, drop the [adjective] source pattern completely. You don't need a category of software licenses, you need a software license — and you really, truly, do not need the headache of trying to decide which non-free licenses get to live under the 'fair' umbrella. Call it the Head Start License. That's what it does: it gives the authors a head start. I consider that fair! As I was saying at the beginning of the post, my objection isn't nearly so simple as "you say it's fair and that's wrong". If pushed on what "kind of" license that is, you can call it eventually-open source. There's no 'spin' there, because it's literally true: it is, eventually, open source software. Plus you can put your foot down, because the essence of what the license is now lives in the name: "eventually, in this context, means two years. We consider less than two years also eventually open, more than that is, at best, eventually eventually-open source software." That probably sounds funny but it would work, with the right memetic buy in: no, we've established this, your six-year license is not eventually open source, eventually means two years, here, check out this website I'm linking to. I hope I've made it clear that while I dislike the choice, I don't find it distasteful. Others are going to find it distasteful. I'm not going to speak on behalf of those people, but mind share is critical with an idea like this, and you're going to be doing battle with "if it isn't free it isn't fair". Good slogan actually, you don't have to agree with it (I don't) to recognize that. Anyway, good luck with the project. I commend you for not succumbing to the temptation to try and slice a bit of salami off the open source definition, although as I write that out, I'm realizing some of my dislike here is in fact that 'fair source' tries to borrow some of the emotional valence of free software, and that's the thing, you don't need to do that: eventually-open source becomes open source, eventually, it's a binding commitment, you just need people to show some patience, because you have a living to earn in the meantime. You wrote it, so you get a head start. Seems fair. If it was my bikeshed, well, that's the colour I'd paint it.

ezekg 2y ago
> I have a suggestion, not that I expect it to matter: first, drop the [adjective] source pattern completely. You don't need a category of software licenses, you need a software license — and you really, truly, do not need the headache of trying to decide which non-free licenses get to live under the 'fair' umbrella. No, we don't need a single Fair Source License. I originally was on this bandwagon, too, but I was convinced along the way that we need a lot of focused licenses covering the myriad of ways businesses monetize their core products. From SaaS, to on-prem, to open core, etc. All of these monetization strategies require different restrictions e.g. monetizing SaaS is only concerned with other SaaS competition, but monetizing open core is concerned with protecting premium features. Attempting to draft a single license that everybody can use ends up creating a license nobody can understand. (Trust me -- we tried it!) This is the entire reason I essentially forked the Functional Source License [0] into the Fair Core License [1] -- because the FSL didn't offer a way for me to safely monetize an "open core"-style product [2]. > Call it the Head Start License. That's what it does: it gives the authors a head start. I consider that fair! As I was saying at the beginning of the post, my objection isn't nearly so simple as "you say it's fair and that's wrong". Right away, Head Start has strong negative connotations and would never see the level of adoption we're looking for. We want companies to be excited about it, and conveying they need a handicap does not do that. It's also not communicative, you can't say "X is now Head Start" or "X was Head Started". Not to mention, like I touched on above, Fair Source isn't a single license. It's an umbrella covering many licenses, hopefully with more to come as adoption grows. And you even said it -- a "head start" is fair, so "fair" source makes perfect sense. > If pushed on what "kind of" license that is, you can call it eventually-open source. There's no 'spin' there, because it's literally true: it is, eventually, open source software. Delayed Open Source publication (DOSP), or "eventually-open-source", is a weak term by itself, since it just means proprietary/closed-source software that is eventually Open Sourced. It has the same problem that "source-available" has -- it doesn't convey any immediate user freedoms. Fair Source however requires that the software be publicly available to read now, with the freedom to be used, modified, and redistributed with minimal restrictions, in addition to undergoing DOSP typically within 2 years. My $0.02: I think people would complain no matter what it was called. It'll grow on everyone the more it's adopted. [0]: https://fsl.software https://fsl.software [1]: https://fcl.dev https://fcl.dev [2]: https://keygen.sh/blog/keygen-is-now-fair-source/ https://keygen.sh/blog/keygen-is-now-fair-source/

ezekg 2y ago

> I have a suggestion, not that I expect it to matter: first, drop the [adjective] source pattern completely. You don't need a category of software licenses, you need a software license — and you really, truly, do not need the headache of trying to decide which non-free licenses get to live under the 'fair' umbrella. No, we don't need a single Fair Source License. I originally was on this bandwagon, too, but I was convinced along the way that we need a lot of focused licenses covering the myriad of ways businesses monetize their core products. From SaaS, to on-prem, to open core, etc. All of these monetization strategies require different restrictions e.g. monetizing SaaS is only concerned with other SaaS competition, but monetizing open core is concerned with protecting premium features. Attempting to draft a single license that everybody can use ends up creating a license nobody can understand. (Trust me -- we tried it!) This is the entire reason I essentially forked the Functional Source License [0] into the Fair Core License [1] -- because the FSL didn't offer a way for me to safely monetize an "open core"-style product [2]. > Call it the Head Start License. That's what it does: it gives the authors a head start. I consider that fair! As I was saying at the beginning of the post, my objection isn't nearly so simple as "you say it's fair and that's wrong". Right away, Head Start has strong negative connotations and would never see the level of adoption we're looking for. We want companies to be excited about it, and conveying they need a handicap does not do that. It's also not communicative, you can't say "X is now Head Start" or "X was Head Started". Not to mention, like I touched on above, Fair Source isn't a single license. It's an umbrella covering many licenses, hopefully with more to come as adoption grows. And you even said it -- a "head start" is fair, so "fair" source makes perfect sense. > If pushed on what "kind of" license that is, you can call it eventually-open source. There's no 'spin' there, because it's literally true: it is, eventually, open source software. Delayed Open Source publication (DOSP), or "eventually-open-source", is a weak term by itself, since it just means proprietary/closed-source software that is eventually Open Sourced. It has the same problem that "source-available" has -- it doesn't convey any immediate user freedoms. Fair Source however requires that the software be publicly available to read now, with the freedom to be used, modified, and redistributed with minimal restrictions, in addition to undergoing DOSP typically within 2 years. My $0.02: I think people would complain no matter what it was called. It'll grow on everyone the more it's adopted. [0]: https://fsl.software https://fsl.software [1]: https://fcl.dev https://fcl.dev [2]: https://keygen.sh/blog/keygen-is-now-fair-source/ https://keygen.sh/blog/keygen-is-now-fair-source/