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

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