5 ms·

> "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 cle

> "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.

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.