6 ms·

Could not disagree more. "Source Available" sounds like what it should. It communicates that the code is public, so you can see it's high quality, actively wo

Could not disagree more. "Source Available" sounds like what it should. It communicates that the code is public, so you can see it's high quality, actively worked on, and nothing nefarious. However, it's not meant to be a community project or used commercially for free. "Fair Source" is abundantly less clear. It implies some sense of "fairness" which can mean drastically different things to people.

the_mitsuhiko 2y ago
> "Fair Source" is abundantly less clear. It implies some sense of "fairness" which can mean drastically different things to people. Fair source has a very clear definition: Fair Source is an alternative to closed source, allowing you to safely share access to your core products. 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 key here is delayed open source publication and limited restrictions up to that point.
- ffsm8 2y ago
  From a "free" perspective, it's better then source available, and worse then open source. But the critique was that "fair source software" doesn't communicate what that license is about whatsoever.
  - echelon 2y ago
    It keeps AWS from gobbling up your business for free. In that sense, it's strictly better.
- naniwaduni 2y ago
  Words mean things, unfortunately.
  - auggierose 2y ago
    And a definition is for creating new meaning, luckily. Just as the definition of "open source".
    - card_zero 2y ago
      Which one?
      - auggierose 2y ago
        I like the Obsidian one: Obsidian is open-source, because it is based on Electron, and therefore you can read its source. https://forum.obsidian.md/t/is-it-true-that-obsidian-is-already-open-source/46413 https://forum.obsidian.md/t/is-it-true-that-obsidian-is-alre...
    - naniwaduni 2y ago
      Yeah, there's a reason we keep having trouble with that one.
  - KingMob 2y ago
    Meaning things is not the problem. The issue is word overloading. “Free software” curtails certain freedoms of downstream users. “Open source” means more than just the source being open to view. And this is fine! But people have gotten so used to their definitions they forget to apply the same criteria to “fair source”.
- happyopossum 2y ago
  > Fair source has a very clear definition: Just because some people decide to define a term doesn't mean that the words making up that term aren't confusing and misleading. Defining "fair source" without regard to common understandings of what's "fair" is guaranteed to leave a good chunk of the world disliking your terminology.
- legends2k 2y ago
  Until I read your definition I assumed what the parent comment mentioned i.e. there's some inherent fairness in the project/code, which made little sense.
- alwa 2y ago
  It seems that it doesn’t so much “have a very clear definition” as a small faction are attempting to create a definition. What is clear about “with minimal restrictions to protect the producer’s business model”? Don’t business models change over time? Doesn’t this suggest that if I were to stake my venture on such a “fair” element of software, it would be fine unless I turned out to succeed, in which case the producer could rightfully box me out (or, more likely, extort a ransom)? Which, I suppose, is a roundabout way of saying: “fair” to whom? Such an “author-first source-available” license may well prevent the specific unfairness of AWS-style snarfage, but would seem to open the door to different kinds of unfairness years down the line. The absolutism of the OSS “zealots” seems much clearer, even with all its tradeoffs.
  - Imustaskforhelp 2y ago
    agreed. I do want to see a proper definition which could be explained better legally. But the idea is pretty good in my opinion (unless you are one of those people who want open source to be free labour for your company)
    - alwa 2y ago
      Agreed on that aspect, too: the basic idea seems more than reasonable (use my work, just be a good neighbor, remember your roots and give a bit back if our work helps you succeed). And I agree with the author that this is something that’s both coherent and distinct from source-available and OSS. My discomfort—setting aside whether such an idea is workable in license form—is mainly with the choice of a moralizing descriptor for such a license.
  - the_mitsuhiko 2y ago
    > It seems that it doesn’t so much “have a very clear definition” as a small faction are attempting to create a definition. We are indeed trying to define it but this was a response to "implies some sense of 'fairness' which can mean drastically different things to people". It has a clear definition, but the interpretation and the consequence on that definition are in relation to a business. I don't think however that is any different to how the consequences of an Open Source license are specific to the license or the company that runs it. A GPL software with a CLA is very different than a GPL software without a CLA. > Which, I suppose, is a roundabout way of saying: “fair” to whom? The goal of the FSL is to ensure that you have aligned incentives as a company with all the users that you have, and you protect yourself against free loaders. I wrote down my thoughts on a longer version a while back here: https://lucumr.pocoo.org/2024/9/23/fsl-agpl-open-source-businesses/ https://lucumr.pocoo.org/2024/9/23/fsl-agpl-open-source-busi...
- ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
  > allows use, modification, and redistribution with minimal restrictions to protect the producer’s business model That part is not something that a lot of folks running "source-available" want. It may have nothing to do with competition. I license most of my stuff as MIT. It allows folks to reuse the source in any way they want (few people do, which is fine by me). Just don't come crying to me, if you mess things up. I can easily envision authors of open-source projects being hit, if their stuff gets caught up in things like breaches, malware, or scamming. In many cases (in the US), the suits may not have merit, but they are still a major distraction. Just the suit can be crippling, and many suits can't be anti-SLAPPed. There's a few reasons that I like to open my source: - It allows folks to ensure that my stuff doesn't violate anyone else's IP. - I would like to hear if I have made any big mistakes. Sometimes, someone may see that I'm doing something in a boneheaded way, and offer a correction (sometimes, in a nasty way, but I still appreciate the help). - If there are problems with things like App Store reviews, or SDK bugs, the ability to point to the entire project, is helpful. - I am sincerely interested in "giving back," and genuinely hope that folks (even if they are a bit "rough around the edges"), can learn from it. On another note, I suspect that the use of "zealots" throughout the post, may be to encourage passionate response. Many folks like all the clicks that outrage brings.
taneq 2y ago
It's fair as in fair beer. I have no idea what fair beer means.
- drewcoo 2y ago
  > I have no idea what fair beer means. I think it's deep fried. https://www.wikihow.life/Cook-Deep-Fried-Beer https://www.wikihow.life/Cook-Deep-Fried-Beer
n4r9 2y ago
I suspect you're conflating meaning with clarity. The article discusses what is meant by "source-available" in terms of the rights it implies. Whether those rights are ambiguous or subjective feels like a different question.
huhtenberg 2y ago
By the same (linguistic) logic, "open source" should really refer to cases when the source is accessible, because it is just that - the opposite of "closed", and "libre source" to the cases when there are additional freedoms of use allowed. Alas, that ship has sailed. That said, "fair source" is a very confusing term. Not really much better.
- boobsbr 2y ago
  Open-source just means you can see the source, as opposed to closed-source, which means you can't see the the source. The visibility of the source has no bearing if the source can be used, modified, distributed, or if the application is gratuitous or not.
  - thesuperbigfrog 2y ago
    >> Open-source just means you can see the source No. "Open Source" has a precise definition that includes terms of use: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
  - sourcepluck 2y ago
    > Open-source just means you can see the source This is false. Or do you mean in the specific context of the new usage of the term by AI companies, which totally contradicts the original usage?
    - card_zero 2y ago
      OK, and I say it's true. Now what? Actually I think the definitions work (in practice) like this: Open source means you can see the source, with a hint of other implications (which vary). Source available means you can see the source, and is probably being used to exclude the extra implications of open source, but might not be. Other terms exist and have unknown meanings and always will.
      - sourcepluck 2y ago
pjc50 2y ago
"Fair source" in this case means "not Open Source". Author complains about binary classification, but we get antsy about this kind of thing for a reason. There's nothing wrong with going source-available, and it's quite useful - but only if you can see the source of the version you're running! I have in the past experience with the weird partly available source of Windows CE, which was also very much not Open Source (no redistribution, subject to Microsoft product licensing etc). This also seems downstream of the Wordpress fiasco in some way.
- simonw 2y ago
  "Fair source" means more than just "not open source" - see https://fair.io/about/ https://fair.io/about/ IMO the most interesting part of the fair source definition is the commitment to "delayed Open Source publication" https://opensource.org/delayed-open-source-publication https://opensource.org/delayed-open-source-publication
Imustaskforhelp 2y ago
After reading the article , here's what I would argue Fair source actually means that a project is source available except it doesn't intend on hurting the end user in the sense that most people wouldn't find the difference , generally the difference is that the parent company of the project is the only one able to provide its services of hosting it for other people etc. this is its 2nd points in a gest (though fair source doesn't necessarily implicate that its only for hosting , the 2nd point is somewhat vague but decent enough because they want more companies under the umbrella) this and delayed open source I kind of agree with this sentiment. Primarily because there is time spent in making something , and I would like to see returns on it as well but I do feel like "open source" is good thing this is the thing where my morales can somewhat agree is that though it doesn't fit osi definition , I am somewhat Ok with it . It's a compromise that I see myself , a somewhat hard core foss guy to agree to . so I am probably going to use it in any of my projects either this or massive agpl / sspl or if I am feeling generous and its not a business then MIT license
leetharris 2y ago
Agreed. Source available is also useful in high end environments to ensure security and reduce loopholes. This is very helpful for software used by security agencies, for example.
deknos 2y ago
How do you know, that any application you run is actually the source you read? How do you know, that the application is actually working if you cannot build it properly (because i see cases of buildrecipes missing)
bentlegen 2y ago
> However, it's not meant to be a community project or used commercially for free. But they can? Source available can mean everything from "proprietary, you can look but you can't touch" to "this source code is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0". Creative Commons projects can be used in commercial projects, for free, provided you adhere to the license terms - but they do not meet the open source definition. This is exactly the problem. "Source available" refers to such a massively wide gamut of possible licensing scenarios that it may as well be meaningless.

the_mitsuhiko 2y ago

> "Fair Source" is abundantly less clear. It implies some sense of "fairness" which can mean drastically different things to people. Fair source has a very clear definition: Fair Source is an alternative to closed source, allowing you to safely share access to your core products. 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 key here is delayed open source publication and limited restrictions up to that point.

ffsm8 2y ago
From a "free" perspective, it's better then source available, and worse then open source. But the critique was that "fair source software" doesn't communicate what that license is about whatsoever.
- echelon 2y ago
  It keeps AWS from gobbling up your business for free. In that sense, it's strictly better.
naniwaduni 2y ago
Words mean things, unfortunately.
- auggierose 2y ago
  And a definition is for creating new meaning, luckily. Just as the definition of "open source".
  - card_zero 2y ago
    Which one?
    - auggierose 2y ago
      I like the Obsidian one: Obsidian is open-source, because it is based on Electron, and therefore you can read its source. https://forum.obsidian.md/t/is-it-true-that-obsidian-is-already-open-source/46413 https://forum.obsidian.md/t/is-it-true-that-obsidian-is-alre...
  - naniwaduni 2y ago
    Yeah, there's a reason we keep having trouble with that one.
- KingMob 2y ago
  Meaning things is not the problem. The issue is word overloading. “Free software” curtails certain freedoms of downstream users. “Open source” means more than just the source being open to view. And this is fine! But people have gotten so used to their definitions they forget to apply the same criteria to “fair source”.
happyopossum 2y ago
> Fair source has a very clear definition: Just because some people decide to define a term doesn't mean that the words making up that term aren't confusing and misleading. Defining "fair source" without regard to common understandings of what's "fair" is guaranteed to leave a good chunk of the world disliking your terminology.
legends2k 2y ago
Until I read your definition I assumed what the parent comment mentioned i.e. there's some inherent fairness in the project/code, which made little sense.
alwa 2y ago
It seems that it doesn’t so much “have a very clear definition” as a small faction are attempting to create a definition. What is clear about “with minimal restrictions to protect the producer’s business model”? Don’t business models change over time? Doesn’t this suggest that if I were to stake my venture on such a “fair” element of software, it would be fine unless I turned out to succeed, in which case the producer could rightfully box me out (or, more likely, extort a ransom)? Which, I suppose, is a roundabout way of saying: “fair” to whom? Such an “author-first source-available” license may well prevent the specific unfairness of AWS-style snarfage, but would seem to open the door to different kinds of unfairness years down the line. The absolutism of the OSS “zealots” seems much clearer, even with all its tradeoffs.
- Imustaskforhelp 2y ago
  agreed. I do want to see a proper definition which could be explained better legally. But the idea is pretty good in my opinion (unless you are one of those people who want open source to be free labour for your company)
  - alwa 2y ago
    Agreed on that aspect, too: the basic idea seems more than reasonable (use my work, just be a good neighbor, remember your roots and give a bit back if our work helps you succeed). And I agree with the author that this is something that’s both coherent and distinct from source-available and OSS. My discomfort—setting aside whether such an idea is workable in license form—is mainly with the choice of a moralizing descriptor for such a license.
- the_mitsuhiko 2y ago
  > It seems that it doesn’t so much “have a very clear definition” as a small faction are attempting to create a definition. We are indeed trying to define it but this was a response to "implies some sense of 'fairness' which can mean drastically different things to people". It has a clear definition, but the interpretation and the consequence on that definition are in relation to a business. I don't think however that is any different to how the consequences of an Open Source license are specific to the license or the company that runs it. A GPL software with a CLA is very different than a GPL software without a CLA. > Which, I suppose, is a roundabout way of saying: “fair” to whom? The goal of the FSL is to ensure that you have aligned incentives as a company with all the users that you have, and you protect yourself against free loaders. I wrote down my thoughts on a longer version a while back here: https://lucumr.pocoo.org/2024/9/23/fsl-agpl-open-source-businesses/ https://lucumr.pocoo.org/2024/9/23/fsl-agpl-open-source-busi...
ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
> allows use, modification, and redistribution with minimal restrictions to protect the producer’s business model That part is not something that a lot of folks running "source-available" want. It may have nothing to do with competition. I license most of my stuff as MIT. It allows folks to reuse the source in any way they want (few people do, which is fine by me). Just don't come crying to me, if you mess things up. I can easily envision authors of open-source projects being hit, if their stuff gets caught up in things like breaches, malware, or scamming. In many cases (in the US), the suits may not have merit, but they are still a major distraction. Just the suit can be crippling, and many suits can't be anti-SLAPPed. There's a few reasons that I like to open my source: - It allows folks to ensure that my stuff doesn't violate anyone else's IP. - I would like to hear if I have made any big mistakes. Sometimes, someone may see that I'm doing something in a boneheaded way, and offer a correction (sometimes, in a nasty way, but I still appreciate the help). - If there are problems with things like App Store reviews, or SDK bugs, the ability to point to the entire project, is helpful. - I am sincerely interested in "giving back," and genuinely hope that folks (even if they are a bit "rough around the edges"), can learn from it. On another note, I suspect that the use of "zealots" throughout the post, may be to encourage passionate response. Many folks like all the clicks that outrage brings.

taneq 2y ago

It's fair as in fair beer. I have no idea what fair beer means.

drewcoo 2y ago
> I have no idea what fair beer means. I think it's deep fried. https://www.wikihow.life/Cook-Deep-Fried-Beer https://www.wikihow.life/Cook-Deep-Fried-Beer

n4r9 2y ago

I suspect you're conflating meaning with clarity. The article discusses what is meant by "source-available" in terms of the rights it implies. Whether those rights are ambiguous or subjective feels like a different question.

huhtenberg 2y ago

By the same (linguistic) logic, "open source" should really refer to cases when the source is accessible, because it is just that - the opposite of "closed", and "libre source" to the cases when there are additional freedoms of use allowed. Alas, that ship has sailed. That said, "fair source" is a very confusing term. Not really much better.

boobsbr 2y ago
Open-source just means you can see the source, as opposed to closed-source, which means you can't see the the source. The visibility of the source has no bearing if the source can be used, modified, distributed, or if the application is gratuitous or not.
- thesuperbigfrog 2y ago
  >> Open-source just means you can see the source No. "Open Source" has a precise definition that includes terms of use: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
- sourcepluck 2y ago
  > Open-source just means you can see the source This is false. Or do you mean in the specific context of the new usage of the term by AI companies, which totally contradicts the original usage?
  - card_zero 2y ago
    OK, and I say it's true. Now what? Actually I think the definitions work (in practice) like this: Open source means you can see the source, with a hint of other implications (which vary). Source available means you can see the source, and is probably being used to exclude the extra implications of open source, but might not be. Other terms exist and have unknown meanings and always will.
    - sourcepluck 2y ago

pjc50 2y ago

"Fair source" in this case means "not Open Source". Author complains about binary classification, but we get antsy about this kind of thing for a reason. There's nothing wrong with going source-available, and it's quite useful - but only if you can see the source of the version you're running! I have in the past experience with the weird partly available source of Windows CE, which was also very much not Open Source (no redistribution, subject to Microsoft product licensing etc). This also seems downstream of the Wordpress fiasco in some way.

simonw 2y ago
"Fair source" means more than just "not open source" - see https://fair.io/about/ https://fair.io/about/ IMO the most interesting part of the fair source definition is the commitment to "delayed Open Source publication" https://opensource.org/delayed-open-source-publication https://opensource.org/delayed-open-source-publication

Imustaskforhelp 2y ago

After reading the article , here's what I would argue Fair source actually means that a project is source available except it doesn't intend on hurting the end user in the sense that most people wouldn't find the difference , generally the difference is that the parent company of the project is the only one able to provide its services of hosting it for other people etc. this is its 2nd points in a gest (though fair source doesn't necessarily implicate that its only for hosting , the 2nd point is somewhat vague but decent enough because they want more companies under the umbrella) this and delayed open source I kind of agree with this sentiment. Primarily because there is time spent in making something , and I would like to see returns on it as well but I do feel like "open source" is good thing this is the thing where my morales can somewhat agree is that though it doesn't fit osi definition , I am somewhat Ok with it . It's a compromise that I see myself , a somewhat hard core foss guy to agree to . so I am probably going to use it in any of my projects either this or massive agpl / sspl or if I am feeling generous and its not a business then MIT license

leetharris 2y ago

Agreed. Source available is also useful in high end environments to ensure security and reduce loopholes. This is very helpful for software used by security agencies, for example.

deknos 2y ago

How do you know, that any application you run is actually the source you read? How do you know, that the application is actually working if you cannot build it properly (because i see cases of buildrecipes missing)

bentlegen 2y ago

> However, it's not meant to be a community project or used commercially for free. But they can? Source available can mean everything from "proprietary, you can look but you can't touch" to "this source code is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0". Creative Commons projects can be used in commercial projects, for free, provided you adhere to the license terms - but they do not meet the open source definition. This is exactly the problem. "Source available" refers to such a massively wide gamut of possible licensing scenarios that it may as well be meaningless.