7 ms·

Fair Source: Sustainability with no customer risk

30 points by ezekg 2y ago

Sytten 2y ago
Is there a similar license for non SaaS software? I feel the B2C space didnt get the same attention for those new licenses.
- ezekg 2y ago
  There's the Fair Core License [0] for projects that monetize self-hosting with commercial features e.g. an "open core"-style project. Is that what you're thinking? Or what's the difference between B2B and B2C in your case? [0]: https://fcl.dev https://fcl.dev
  - Sytten 2y ago
    Nah I am selling software you install on your computer so that probably wont work
    - ezekg 2y ago
      So am I via self-hosting. The license's non-compete isn't specific to SaaS like e.g. the ELv2 is. Why wouldn't it work?
- wmf 2y ago
  For B2C you might be better off monetizing with trademarks/branding and marketing. There's also the FUTO License https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/grayjay/-/blob/master/LICENSE.md https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/grayjay/-/blob/master... but since donations don't work...
- arccy 2y ago
  I don't see why you couldn't use it for non SaaS, the Fair Source License (FSL) [1] they're using here doesn't say anything about hosting, only competition in the form of: > - substitutes for the Software; > - substitutes for any other product or service we offer using the Software that exists as of the date we make the Software available; or > - offers the same or substantially similar functionality as the Software. I'm not sure what you'd target with B2C, these licenses exist explicitly to allow end users to run their own versions for private use. [1]: https://fsl.software/ https://fsl.software/
  - Sytten 2y ago
    Because I am selling to thinkerers so if the license allows redistribution of modified software that say removes limitations of pricing tiers then it is not good.
ezekg 2y ago
Prior musings on the topic from the author: - https://pepicrft.me/blog/2024/08/02/commercial-oss https://pepicrft.me/blog/2024/08/02/commercial-oss - https://pepicrft.me/blog/2024/07/22/openness-as-a-tool-of-trust https://pepicrft.me/blog/2024/07/22/openness-as-a-tool-of-tr... - https://pepicrft.me/blog/2024/07/09/when-you-are-open https://pepicrft.me/blog/2024/07/09/when-you-are-open
Zambyte 2y ago
> Open Source and permissive licenses like MIT and Apache bring freedom but don’t protect the business. Companies can try to benefit from it in a predatory way [...] I get that this post is about choosing a certain non-Free license, but it seems very weird to me to describe businesses leveraging the permissive terms of permissive licenses as "predatory" behavior. Permissive licenses were created in response to hereditary licenses like the GPL specifically to allow the kind of behavior that the author is referring to as "predatory". Blaming anyone but yourself for choosing to license your code with a license designed to enable behavior you don't like seems quite silly. > Other organizations seek protection by adopting AGPLv3, which many companies have policies against, and selling dual licenses and enterprise features. Those businesses are often referred to as Open Core. Open core is related to, but not the same as the dual licensing pattern they are describing. Open core is basically the same as dual licensing, but the different licenses actually apply to different sets of software under the Open core model.
- nickpsecurity 2y ago
  Some people release software under a permissive license, people use it according to the terms of that license, and they get mad about it. It’s unreal. If they want specific behaviors, they should put them in the license or in a contract. Businesses will probably not use it over permissive software, though.
  - nope1000 2y ago
    > If they want specific behaviours, they should put them in the license But that's exactly the point of the article, isn't it?
  - evanjrowley 2y ago
    >people use it according to the terms of that license, and they get mad about it Whenever permissively licensed software is used, is it acceptable to have an expectation that one should be able to use it against the business that originally created it?
    - 2y ago
oddevan 2y ago
What's the risk for businesses in a dual-license situation? The public can use the AGPL, or the business can get a private license with no viral stipulations at all. Is it just the FUD around a GPL-like license? (Serious question, as this is the business model I'm pursuing.)
- nickpsecurity 2y ago
  Part of the problem is: “what can I do with the commercial source?” The open-source code lets you modify and distribute. There’s either no risk (permissive) or well-understood. Proprietary licenses often don’t allow freedoms like that. So, some of the new licenses are addressing modification and redistribution of source-available, proprietary code. Far as AGPL, it’s very unpopular even among FOSS users. Just using it almost guarantees less adoption of your code. Whether that’s fair or not, I’m just saying it’s a reality that you might be limiting the impact of FOSS code if it’s AGPL.
  - meiraleal 2y ago
    > Far as AGPL, it’s very unpopular even among FOSS users Citation, please. I would say this is very untrue but would like to see the sources of this claim. I hope you are not calling Big tech employees "FOSS users".
    - nickpsecurity 2y ago
      Only thing I could find very quickly was a GitHub analysis of license use: https://github.blog/open-source/open-source-license-usage-on-github-com/ https://github.blog/open-source/open-source-license-usage-on... AGPL-licensed projects are almost non-existent compared to many others.
      - meiraleal 2y ago
        So you are talking bullocks as I suspected. Thanks. What I see is the opposite, actually: FOSS users (aka free software developers) prefer the GPL family of licenses and the ones that know and understand AGPL also prefer it.
max-privatevoid 2y ago
Perhaps one day we will have a way to monetize software development that works for true Free Software and doesn't require these bullshit openwashing licenses.
- ezekg 2y ago
  I don't really follow how fair source is openwashing.
  - davidgerard 2y ago
    This entire proposal is extremely clearly yet another attempt to promote a non-Open Source license in the same spaces, which is why it mentions open source licenses so much. I don't see how anyone could make out that it isn't.
    - ezekg 2y ago
      That's like arguing that source-available is openwashing and that doesn't make any sense.
      - max-privatevoid 2y ago
        Source-available has a very misleading nature, and as such is commonly used for openwashing. You can read the source, but you can't really do anything with it. That's not how it usually is when you are given access to the source code. Companies such as Anytype market their source-available product as "Open Code" or similar. They are carefully avoiding the term "Open Source", but they still make many ambiguous claims of openness. Tuist is doing the same thing: > As you might know, we aim to make Tuist a fully open project. > So I think a fully open Tuist platform could unfold this way: [...] The intention is clearly to NOT be fully open. > We can only build the best in class productivity platform if we embrace openness. They are not embracing openness. They are trying to reap the benefits that come with being open, such as code contributions and a higher level of trust, while not actually being open.
TheChaplain 2y ago
Then how does it work if I haven't started a business yet? I invent something, AWS find it useful and start providing it as a service. Now I want a piece of the action and start a business myself. Does that means AWS have to stop offering the service? Also same if I change direction of my business, to begin competing with a company providing the service. If that is the case, I don't see why companies would touch anything with that license...
- stavros 2y ago
  If you're starting a project with the intent of eventually making it into a business, you use this license and AWS doesn't touch it. If you're starting a project with the intent of always keeping it FOSS, you use MIT and don't care what AWS does. Sentry's license is a fantastic alternative to just never opening up the source, and that's how we should be thinking about it.
- cge 2y ago
  While I'm not quite sure what my opinion on this license is yet, it does appear to try to at least partially address that. Whether or not you are offering the software itself as a service, the license does not allow it to be commercially offered as a service directly at all. For services using the software, it prohibits the user making the software available to others as part of a commercial product or service that "substitutes for any other product or service we offer using the Software that exists as of the date we make the Software available", with the "Software" being "each version of the software". That would seem to mean, for simply using the software, that AWS could continue offering the service, but after that point, would not be able to update to the next version of the software. It seems like the other prohibitions would prevent them from forking it, but possibly not from working around the old version in other code. In practice, it would likely mean no one would use the software commercially for two years, or would simply use two-year-outdated versions, perhaps with patches.
- ensignavenger 2y ago
  The Functional Source License says "A Competing Use means making the Software available to others in a commercial product or service that: 1) substitutes for the Software; 2) substitutes for any other product or service we offer using the Software that exists as of the date we make the Software available; 3) or offers the same or substantially similar functionality as the Software." So if you haven't started your business yet when you make the release, the second criteria wouldn't have any effect. Once you start your business, any release you make after that point would have that restriction. If you change your business, only releases made after you change your business would be restricted in regards tot he new business, and releases made prior would be restricted in regards to your prior business. Honestly, its a lot to keep track of for a user, and a lot of risk, I would always prefer open source alternatives.
stavros 2y ago
"Fair Source" strikes me as a great idea, but I see many many people misunderstand the intent, and being mad at the company for not using a FOSS license. However, that was never the choice: The choice was always between "fair source" and "closed source", and I'm glad a reasonably open alternative to closed source exists.
- wmf 2y ago
  We're still in the hangover period from when VCs would shovel money into open-source startups that had no business model. Fair source feels like a step down from that.
  - stavros 2y ago
    And it's a smaller step down than closing the source completely.
- woodruffw 2y ago
  I think it’s a great idea, but I’d love to see a little bit more consideration around labeling one’s licensing scheme as the “fair” one. Intuitively: if I named my political party “the party without stinky feet,” it’s clear that I’m indirectly saying that other parties do have stinky feet. In a similar manner, labeling yourself the “fair” one indirectly suggests that other licensing schemes, including OSS ones, are somehow unfair.
  - LoganDark 2y ago
    Open-source licenses absolutely can be unfair. If a company takes your MIT-licensed software and builds a huge enterprise on it and gives you none of the money? That's unfair for you. But with closed-source software, it's unfair for everyone who uses it. So imagine if there were some sort of middle ground. (I'm not currently aware of a good one, lol) I'm not talking about if someone uses left-pad as part of a billion LOC project, but more like if a company builds its entire stack on top of something like, say, ffmpeg, or ImageMagick, and the original devs never see even a smidgeon of thanks.
eikenberry 2y ago
Does is require a CLA? That's the deal breaker for me as distributed license ownership is one of the most important ways free software is kept free. Changing the license of a large free software project should be hard/impossible.
- the_mitsuhiko 2y ago
  The FSL and other licenses are not special when it comes to how the contributions are managed. In theory every contribution needs a CLA or something similar regardless of where you contribute it accept contributions. That most projects don’t require that is typically a result of “it doesn’t matter until it matters”.
  - eikenberry 2y ago
    Not requiring a CLA doesn't necessarily mean you just didn't think of it... you can not require a CLA on purpose. To spread ownership around to enough people to make it much, much harder to change the license. To make the license as sticky as possible.
    - the_mitsuhiko 2y ago
      I think a big reason that CLAs are less common nowadays is Github's TOS which explicitly require you to acknowledge that you contribute under the same license: > Whenever you add Content to a repository containing notice of a license, you license that Content under the same terms, and you agree that you have the right to license that Content under those terms. If you have a separate agreement to license that Content under different terms, such as a contributor license agreement, that agreement will supersede. While one can argue that even in the absence of that notice, that might be how it works, there is no real legal agreement to that. You could legally walk back on your contribution and claim that you never gave a license to it. I have seen that happen once indirectly when a contributor informed me that the company that they worked for did not allow the person to contribute.
      - 2y ago
davidgerard 2y ago
Yet another way to spell "proprietary" - who says tech can't invent new things? Why is it all these companies try to change the meaning of "open source" rather than open their source?
- bigstrat2003 2y ago
  They very specifically are not using the term "open source", so your objection is kind of unreasonable.
  - davidgerard 2y ago
    That's technically correct from a certain point of view. However, that's the debate they're throwing this into, and it's extremely clear that is. It is not reasonable to assume they've said magic words that make this proposal not just another entry in that precise debate. This is 100% an attempt at openwashing.
aaron695 2y ago
Fair Source seems great and a really good move forward. 2 years is constant pressure on the creator to be innovative, maintained and secure. Then two years ~public domain compared to Disney's 95 years or patents 20 years. GPL is somewhat broken, AGPL is so broken it's not fit for purpose, it's un-enforceable. MIT is amazing, but people need money. The only concern is if people start forking licenses and making it all a mess. MIT (or freer) matters, a short time period also matters. People need to stick together on one license.
- ranger_danger 2y ago
  All licenses are only as useful as your individual ability to enforce it in a court, possibly against a megacorp.
- max-privatevoid 2y ago
  How is the AGPL unenforcable?

30 points by ezekg 2y ago

Is there a similar license for non SaaS software? I feel the B2C space didnt get the same attention for those new licenses.

ezekg 2y ago
There's the Fair Core License [0] for projects that monetize self-hosting with commercial features e.g. an "open core"-style project. Is that what you're thinking? Or what's the difference between B2B and B2C in your case? [0]: https://fcl.dev https://fcl.dev
- Sytten 2y ago
  Nah I am selling software you install on your computer so that probably wont work
  - ezekg 2y ago
    So am I via self-hosting. The license's non-compete isn't specific to SaaS like e.g. the ELv2 is. Why wouldn't it work?
wmf 2y ago
For B2C you might be better off monetizing with trademarks/branding and marketing. There's also the FUTO License https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/grayjay/-/blob/master/LICENSE.md https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/grayjay/-/blob/master... but since donations don't work...
arccy 2y ago
I don't see why you couldn't use it for non SaaS, the Fair Source License (FSL) [1] they're using here doesn't say anything about hosting, only competition in the form of: > - substitutes for the Software; > - substitutes for any other product or service we offer using the Software that exists as of the date we make the Software available; or > - offers the same or substantially similar functionality as the Software. I'm not sure what you'd target with B2C, these licenses exist explicitly to allow end users to run their own versions for private use. [1]: https://fsl.software/ https://fsl.software/
- Sytten 2y ago
  Because I am selling to thinkerers so if the license allows redistribution of modified software that say removes limitations of pricing tiers then it is not good.

ezekg 2y ago

Prior musings on the topic from the author: - https://pepicrft.me/blog/2024/08/02/commercial-oss https://pepicrft.me/blog/2024/08/02/commercial-oss - https://pepicrft.me/blog/2024/07/22/openness-as-a-tool-of-trust https://pepicrft.me/blog/2024/07/22/openness-as-a-tool-of-tr... - https://pepicrft.me/blog/2024/07/09/when-you-are-open https://pepicrft.me/blog/2024/07/09/when-you-are-open

Zambyte 2y ago

> Open Source and permissive licenses like MIT and Apache bring freedom but don’t protect the business. Companies can try to benefit from it in a predatory way [...] I get that this post is about choosing a certain non-Free license, but it seems very weird to me to describe businesses leveraging the permissive terms of permissive licenses as "predatory" behavior. Permissive licenses were created in response to hereditary licenses like the GPL specifically to allow the kind of behavior that the author is referring to as "predatory". Blaming anyone but yourself for choosing to license your code with a license designed to enable behavior you don't like seems quite silly. > Other organizations seek protection by adopting AGPLv3, which many companies have policies against, and selling dual licenses and enterprise features. Those businesses are often referred to as Open Core. Open core is related to, but not the same as the dual licensing pattern they are describing. Open core is basically the same as dual licensing, but the different licenses actually apply to different sets of software under the Open core model.

nickpsecurity 2y ago
Some people release software under a permissive license, people use it according to the terms of that license, and they get mad about it. It’s unreal. If they want specific behaviors, they should put them in the license or in a contract. Businesses will probably not use it over permissive software, though.
- nope1000 2y ago
  > If they want specific behaviours, they should put them in the license But that's exactly the point of the article, isn't it?
- evanjrowley 2y ago
  >people use it according to the terms of that license, and they get mad about it Whenever permissively licensed software is used, is it acceptable to have an expectation that one should be able to use it against the business that originally created it?
  - 2y ago

oddevan 2y ago

What's the risk for businesses in a dual-license situation? The public can use the AGPL, or the business can get a private license with no viral stipulations at all. Is it just the FUD around a GPL-like license? (Serious question, as this is the business model I'm pursuing.)

nickpsecurity 2y ago
Part of the problem is: “what can I do with the commercial source?” The open-source code lets you modify and distribute. There’s either no risk (permissive) or well-understood. Proprietary licenses often don’t allow freedoms like that. So, some of the new licenses are addressing modification and redistribution of source-available, proprietary code. Far as AGPL, it’s very unpopular even among FOSS users. Just using it almost guarantees less adoption of your code. Whether that’s fair or not, I’m just saying it’s a reality that you might be limiting the impact of FOSS code if it’s AGPL.
- meiraleal 2y ago
  > Far as AGPL, it’s very unpopular even among FOSS users Citation, please. I would say this is very untrue but would like to see the sources of this claim. I hope you are not calling Big tech employees "FOSS users".
  - nickpsecurity 2y ago
    Only thing I could find very quickly was a GitHub analysis of license use: https://github.blog/open-source/open-source-license-usage-on-github-com/ https://github.blog/open-source/open-source-license-usage-on... AGPL-licensed projects are almost non-existent compared to many others.
    - meiraleal 2y ago
      So you are talking bullocks as I suspected. Thanks. What I see is the opposite, actually: FOSS users (aka free software developers) prefer the GPL family of licenses and the ones that know and understand AGPL also prefer it.

max-privatevoid 2y ago

Perhaps one day we will have a way to monetize software development that works for true Free Software and doesn't require these bullshit openwashing licenses.

ezekg 2y ago
I don't really follow how fair source is openwashing.
- davidgerard 2y ago
  This entire proposal is extremely clearly yet another attempt to promote a non-Open Source license in the same spaces, which is why it mentions open source licenses so much. I don't see how anyone could make out that it isn't.
  - ezekg 2y ago
    That's like arguing that source-available is openwashing and that doesn't make any sense.
    - max-privatevoid 2y ago
      Source-available has a very misleading nature, and as such is commonly used for openwashing. You can read the source, but you can't really do anything with it. That's not how it usually is when you are given access to the source code. Companies such as Anytype market their source-available product as "Open Code" or similar. They are carefully avoiding the term "Open Source", but they still make many ambiguous claims of openness. Tuist is doing the same thing: > As you might know, we aim to make Tuist a fully open project. > So I think a fully open Tuist platform could unfold this way: [...] The intention is clearly to NOT be fully open. > We can only build the best in class productivity platform if we embrace openness. They are not embracing openness. They are trying to reap the benefits that come with being open, such as code contributions and a higher level of trust, while not actually being open.

TheChaplain 2y ago

Then how does it work if I haven't started a business yet? I invent something, AWS find it useful and start providing it as a service. Now I want a piece of the action and start a business myself. Does that means AWS have to stop offering the service? Also same if I change direction of my business, to begin competing with a company providing the service. If that is the case, I don't see why companies would touch anything with that license...

stavros 2y ago
If you're starting a project with the intent of eventually making it into a business, you use this license and AWS doesn't touch it. If you're starting a project with the intent of always keeping it FOSS, you use MIT and don't care what AWS does. Sentry's license is a fantastic alternative to just never opening up the source, and that's how we should be thinking about it.
cge 2y ago
While I'm not quite sure what my opinion on this license is yet, it does appear to try to at least partially address that. Whether or not you are offering the software itself as a service, the license does not allow it to be commercially offered as a service directly at all. For services using the software, it prohibits the user making the software available to others as part of a commercial product or service that "substitutes for any other product or service we offer using the Software that exists as of the date we make the Software available", with the "Software" being "each version of the software". That would seem to mean, for simply using the software, that AWS could continue offering the service, but after that point, would not be able to update to the next version of the software. It seems like the other prohibitions would prevent them from forking it, but possibly not from working around the old version in other code. In practice, it would likely mean no one would use the software commercially for two years, or would simply use two-year-outdated versions, perhaps with patches.
ensignavenger 2y ago
The Functional Source License says "A Competing Use means making the Software available to others in a commercial product or service that: 1) substitutes for the Software; 2) substitutes for any other product or service we offer using the Software that exists as of the date we make the Software available; 3) or offers the same or substantially similar functionality as the Software." So if you haven't started your business yet when you make the release, the second criteria wouldn't have any effect. Once you start your business, any release you make after that point would have that restriction. If you change your business, only releases made after you change your business would be restricted in regards tot he new business, and releases made prior would be restricted in regards to your prior business. Honestly, its a lot to keep track of for a user, and a lot of risk, I would always prefer open source alternatives.

stavros 2y ago

"Fair Source" strikes me as a great idea, but I see many many people misunderstand the intent, and being mad at the company for not using a FOSS license. However, that was never the choice: The choice was always between "fair source" and "closed source", and I'm glad a reasonably open alternative to closed source exists.

wmf 2y ago
We're still in the hangover period from when VCs would shovel money into open-source startups that had no business model. Fair source feels like a step down from that.
- stavros 2y ago
  And it's a smaller step down than closing the source completely.
woodruffw 2y ago
I think it’s a great idea, but I’d love to see a little bit more consideration around labeling one’s licensing scheme as the “fair” one. Intuitively: if I named my political party “the party without stinky feet,” it’s clear that I’m indirectly saying that other parties do have stinky feet. In a similar manner, labeling yourself the “fair” one indirectly suggests that other licensing schemes, including OSS ones, are somehow unfair.
- LoganDark 2y ago
  Open-source licenses absolutely can be unfair. If a company takes your MIT-licensed software and builds a huge enterprise on it and gives you none of the money? That's unfair for you. But with closed-source software, it's unfair for everyone who uses it. So imagine if there were some sort of middle ground. (I'm not currently aware of a good one, lol) I'm not talking about if someone uses left-pad as part of a billion LOC project, but more like if a company builds its entire stack on top of something like, say, ffmpeg, or ImageMagick, and the original devs never see even a smidgeon of thanks.

eikenberry 2y ago

Does is require a CLA? That's the deal breaker for me as distributed license ownership is one of the most important ways free software is kept free. Changing the license of a large free software project should be hard/impossible.

the_mitsuhiko 2y ago
The FSL and other licenses are not special when it comes to how the contributions are managed. In theory every contribution needs a CLA or something similar regardless of where you contribute it accept contributions. That most projects don’t require that is typically a result of “it doesn’t matter until it matters”.
- eikenberry 2y ago
  Not requiring a CLA doesn't necessarily mean you just didn't think of it... you can not require a CLA on purpose. To spread ownership around to enough people to make it much, much harder to change the license. To make the license as sticky as possible.
  - the_mitsuhiko 2y ago
    I think a big reason that CLAs are less common nowadays is Github's TOS which explicitly require you to acknowledge that you contribute under the same license: > Whenever you add Content to a repository containing notice of a license, you license that Content under the same terms, and you agree that you have the right to license that Content under those terms. If you have a separate agreement to license that Content under different terms, such as a contributor license agreement, that agreement will supersede. While one can argue that even in the absence of that notice, that might be how it works, there is no real legal agreement to that. You could legally walk back on your contribution and claim that you never gave a license to it. I have seen that happen once indirectly when a contributor informed me that the company that they worked for did not allow the person to contribute.
    - 2y ago

davidgerard 2y ago

Yet another way to spell "proprietary" - who says tech can't invent new things? Why is it all these companies try to change the meaning of "open source" rather than open their source?

bigstrat2003 2y ago
They very specifically are not using the term "open source", so your objection is kind of unreasonable.
- davidgerard 2y ago
  That's technically correct from a certain point of view. However, that's the debate they're throwing this into, and it's extremely clear that is. It is not reasonable to assume they've said magic words that make this proposal not just another entry in that precise debate. This is 100% an attempt at openwashing.

aaron695 2y ago

Fair Source seems great and a really good move forward. 2 years is constant pressure on the creator to be innovative, maintained and secure. Then two years ~public domain compared to Disney's 95 years or patents 20 years. GPL is somewhat broken, AGPL is so broken it's not fit for purpose, it's un-enforceable. MIT is amazing, but people need money. The only concern is if people start forking licenses and making it all a mess. MIT (or freer) matters, a short time period also matters. People need to stick together on one license.

ranger_danger 2y ago
All licenses are only as useful as your individual ability to enforce it in a court, possibly against a megacorp.
max-privatevoid 2y ago
How is the AGPL unenforcable?