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.
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.
"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.
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
> "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.
> 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.
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.
You have to read quite far down this article (past some IMO unnecessary language about "zealots") to get to the key point: it's promoting the use of the term "fair source", as described here: https://fair.io/about/
Fair Source is an alternative to closed
source, allowing you to safely share
access to your core products. Fair
Source Software (FSS):
1. is publicly available to read;
2. allows use, modification, and
redistribution with minimal
restrictions to protect the
producer’s business model; and
3. undergoes delayed Open Source
publication (DOSP).
Minor style point: this is clearly an opinion piece, and uses the term "I" a lot - "If you asked me a year ago how I felt about open washing..." - as such, it would be great to have an author name on this rather than leaving it anonymously credited to "Keygen LLC".
I find it ironic that all of the confusion and controversy around both the terms "open source" (and "free software") have highlighted the importance and justification of trade marks. What these movements could really benefit from are legally-protected trade descriptors that mean exactly what the originator means, and nothing different. But instead the internet is full of endless arguments about what these words mean, because FSF/OSI didn't have the foresight (or desire?) to advocate for unique trademarkable names.
OSI made a mistake when they borrowed the term "Open Source" from the intelligence community and RMS made a mistake when he presumed that everyone on the planet would understand that "free as in beer" wasn't what he meant. Ultimately, while these groups were had great thought about software licensing, they weren't great with communication, branding, or marketing.
I think we'd all be better off if we just started using "OSI Open Source" where that was what was actually meant. Trying to redefine words or phrases with existing connotations is a futile exercise.
It's not meaningless, the author just doesn't like it. Open-source and source available were always meant to be watered-down versions of the FSF's free software specifically to be more palatable to businesses. That's not a bug and it's not even a feature. It's the freaking mission statement.
When I see something that says it's Open Source I assume it means https://opensource.org/osd - if it doesn't, I'm one of the "zealots" (to quote the linked article) who noisily complains about it.
Fair source sounds like a really bad idea. The problem is if you let someone else define what reasonable limits to competition are, you end up in court and learn that it can be anything. Say a company sells me fair source, but I don’t like the company so I fire them and take over for myself? Well, now I get to try to convince a court that I’m not competing, despite clearly having cost them one customer. Just study the history of the constitutions commerce clause, where everything can and has been construed to affect interstate commerce.
The "Fair Source Software" is an interesting idea, but it's just a variant of software with a proprietary license to me.
I like the built-in commitment to open source the software after a period of time. That's the interesting part to me. (I'd drop the term "fair source software" -- whether it's fair or not depends on perspective and details -- and just call it delayed open source publication software.)
But let's be clear here: the idea is for the author to benefit from the popularity and acceptance of OSS while protecting their own financial interests. I think that's inherently a dodge. It's an effort to make it seem as free and open as possible, but if you figure out a way to make nice money off it, the author will come after you for payment, which means it's not free and open.
BTW, I'm not much of an OSS zealot. As a software developer, I heartily approve of software developers being paid for their efforts. I just think it should be done in an up-front manner.
Source Available means exactly what it says, and I don't need to look up a definition somewhere. From what I understand, I can view the source code and verify that a software does what it claims and does not have some hidden nastiness.
What the hell does "Fair Source" even imply? Fair to whom, the author or the users? Stop with the bullshit already.
Yes, "source available" does mean exactly what it says. There is a class of projects, however, which are still looking for a term. They are all "source available", but that's not all there is to it (you could call all FOSS projects that too, but nobody does). The main difference is that they allow you to modify the code and even share the modifications ("source available" projects generally don't).
Arguably, "open source" is the correct term to use, and FOSS should be called "free source", but OSI made a mess there.
"Fair source" is as good a term as any. "Cloud protected source" (as in "cloud protection licenses") also.
Current situation is not good for anyone except BigTech, but sure, let's burn anyone trying to avoid unfair competition by actually using a "fair source" license.
Agreed, and "fair source" in regards to modification is too vague. I know the author intentionally left it vague, but say the conditions for modification are a non-compete.
What if the producer moves into a field that I'm in and is now a competitor - have I suddenly run afoul of the license, even though I wasn't before?
There's very little protections there.
Source Available vs. Open Source is already clear. Can I modify & redistribute or not.
> 2. allows use, modification, and redistribution with minimal restrictions to protect the producer's business model
As my three year old is rather fond of saying when he disagrees with my opinion: "no, try again." I think the intention is good, but the approach is fraught with risk.
> (You may think point 2 is vague — and it is — intentionally. Since business models vary, this invites exploration in new licenses outside of the current suite of fair source licenses.)
Right. And when your business model changes, bringing it into conflict with mine? "Exploration" sounds like another word for "pay money or fight lawsuit". The point of a license is to set expectations between parties. When those aren't clear, then a license isn't doing its primary job.
We open sourced our air quality monitor (firmware & hardware) under CC-BY-SA.
The SA (share-a-like) gives quite a lot of protection in regards to the concerns that the author rises as most companies that would take our source code would not be willing to keep it open and also probably not so keen to attribute us as originators.
I think what also many people forget is that the source-code is actually only a small part of business success. In my opinion the network, reputation and community that a company builds has much more value than the actual code.
We went fully open source hardware more than 2 years ago and it was probably one of our best decisions as a company.
Making up a new name really?
I have an open source project that I am thinking about monetizing.
In the end as an author you actually have to choose a sensible license set-up for that project.
If this then counts as open-source or not really only matters for marketing purposes. And a new term will not have the same effect for that. If I put fair-source on my landing page it just means I have to explain more.
People that really care about the license will read the license. People that don't really care will be fine with generic terms imo and don't need the classification.
I've honestly never considered "source available" as a derogatory term. If you release your source code so people can look at it but you're not using an Open Source license I think it's a perfectly respectful (and often self-selected) way to describe something.
Using the term "open source" for every project published in source code form might not be ideal — not just because of the "zealots", but also because it may not serve the author’s best interests.
The term "open source" has a well-established reputation as "free as in beer", whether we like it or not. So why attach such a label to a commercial product?
Commercial software isn't inherently a bad thing. In fact, it's even better if the author or business can afford to publish it in source code form, making their services more transparent to end users.
As for the term "source available", it isn't as well-established as "open source". Its meaning may not be clear to the audience, and there's a certain lack of trust associated with it. However, this could change over time if more projects identify as "source available" and maintain clear and honest distribution and usage policies.
With "source available" I understand that I am very likely buying a product. Unless it is something like "freeware". I probably don't need the source, but at least I might have option to check how something works or verify something. Or even use it to report a bug, which I then have to hope they fix.
At least it is a step up from close source software. Which I am fine with. Most of the time I don't really need to know how something works anyway.
So Fair use means "open source but only if you don't compete with me because I want to retain exclusive benefits for 2 years". I don't see how the goal couldn't be achieved by using AGPL and then going to another, less viral license after the 2 years. This has the advantage that at no point is the software not Free/Libre
I personally believe using AGPL in that way is dishonest, because it foregoes the spirit of open source and instead adopts AGPL as a thinly-veiled non-compete propped up on ambiguity and FUD, which is exactly what this essay delves into i.r.t. dishonesty in commercial open source.
[+] [-] skeptrune|1 year ago|reply
"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.
[+] [-] huhtenberg|1 year ago|reply
That said, "fair source" is a very confusing term. Not really much better.
[+] [-] pjc50|1 year ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Imustaskforhelp|1 year ago|reply
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
[+] [-] the_mitsuhiko|1 year ago|reply
Fair source has a very clear definition:
The key here is delayed open source publication and limited restrictions up to that point.[+] [-] bentlegen|1 year ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] deknos|1 year ago|reply
How do you know, that the application is actually working if you cannot build it properly (because i see cases of buildrecipes missing)
[+] [-] leetharris|1 year ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] taneq|1 year ago|reply
I have no idea what fair beer means.
[+] [-] n4r9|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] simonw|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] simonw|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] ezekg|1 year ago|reply
Edit: added!
[+] [-] kube-system|1 year ago|reply
OSI made a mistake when they borrowed the term "Open Source" from the intelligence community and RMS made a mistake when he presumed that everyone on the planet would understand that "free as in beer" wasn't what he meant. Ultimately, while these groups were had great thought about software licensing, they weren't great with communication, branding, or marketing.
I think we'd all be better off if we just started using "OSI Open Source" where that was what was actually meant. Trying to redefine words or phrases with existing connotations is a futile exercise.
[+] [-] naniwaduni|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] joshAg|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] k__|1 year ago|reply
However, lately most open source alternatives taking a very literal approach to open source which isn't always in the spirit of the term.
[+] [-] simonw|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] pkteison|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] jmull|1 year ago|reply
I like the built-in commitment to open source the software after a period of time. That's the interesting part to me. (I'd drop the term "fair source software" -- whether it's fair or not depends on perspective and details -- and just call it delayed open source publication software.)
But let's be clear here: the idea is for the author to benefit from the popularity and acceptance of OSS while protecting their own financial interests. I think that's inherently a dodge. It's an effort to make it seem as free and open as possible, but if you figure out a way to make nice money off it, the author will come after you for payment, which means it's not free and open.
BTW, I'm not much of an OSS zealot. As a software developer, I heartily approve of software developers being paid for their efforts. I just think it should be done in an up-front manner.
[+] [-] logicziller|1 year ago|reply
What the hell does "Fair Source" even imply? Fair to whom, the author or the users? Stop with the bullshit already.
[+] [-] bornfreddy|1 year ago|reply
Arguably, "open source" is the correct term to use, and FOSS should be called "free source", but OSI made a mess there.
"Fair source" is as good a term as any. "Cloud protected source" (as in "cloud protection licenses") also.
Current situation is not good for anyone except BigTech, but sure, let's burn anyone trying to avoid unfair competition by actually using a "fair source" license.
[+] [-] thewebguyd|1 year ago|reply
What if the producer moves into a field that I'm in and is now a competitor - have I suddenly run afoul of the license, even though I wasn't before?
There's very little protections there.
Source Available vs. Open Source is already clear. Can I modify & redistribute or not.
[+] [-] simonw|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] thadt|1 year ago|reply
As my three year old is rather fond of saying when he disagrees with my opinion: "no, try again." I think the intention is good, but the approach is fraught with risk.
> (You may think point 2 is vague — and it is — intentionally. Since business models vary, this invites exploration in new licenses outside of the current suite of fair source licenses.)
Right. And when your business model changes, bringing it into conflict with mine? "Exploration" sounds like another word for "pay money or fight lawsuit". The point of a license is to set expectations between parties. When those aren't clear, then a license isn't doing its primary job.
[+] [-] ahaucnx|1 year ago|reply
The SA (share-a-like) gives quite a lot of protection in regards to the concerns that the author rises as most companies that would take our source code would not be willing to keep it open and also probably not so keen to attribute us as originators.
I think what also many people forget is that the source-code is actually only a small part of business success. In my opinion the network, reputation and community that a company builds has much more value than the actual code.
We went fully open source hardware more than 2 years ago and it was probably one of our best decisions as a company.
[+] [-] jascha_eng|1 year ago|reply
If this then counts as open-source or not really only matters for marketing purposes. And a new term will not have the same effect for that. If I put fair-source on my landing page it just means I have to explain more.
People that really care about the license will read the license. People that don't really care will be fine with generic terms imo and don't need the classification.
[+] [-] huhtenberg|1 year ago|reply
Based on how and when it's usually used it's a derogatory term employed to intentionally denigrate the choice of license.
[+] [-] simonw|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] Eliah_Lakhin|1 year ago|reply
The term "open source" has a well-established reputation as "free as in beer", whether we like it or not. So why attach such a label to a commercial product?
Commercial software isn't inherently a bad thing. In fact, it's even better if the author or business can afford to publish it in source code form, making their services more transparent to end users.
As for the term "source available", it isn't as well-established as "open source". Its meaning may not be clear to the audience, and there's a certain lack of trust associated with it. However, this could change over time if more projects identify as "source available" and maintain clear and honest distribution and usage policies.
[+] [-] nvr219|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] Ekaros|1 year ago|reply
At least it is a step up from close source software. Which I am fine with. Most of the time I don't really need to know how something works anyway.
[+] [-] atsmyles|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] rakoo|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] ezekg|1 year ago|reply