[logicziller]

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.

[bornfreddy]

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.

[thewebguyd]

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.

[ezekg]

> 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?

If a user moves into the producer's field and becomes a 'competitor', or the producer moves into a user's field, the user simply cannot upgrade to the latest version of the software. But they're access to previous versions would remain unaffected, as far as I understand.

Here's more explicit language from the FSL:

> A Competing Use means making the Software available to others in 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; or

As you can see, terms are "as of the date we make the Software available", so nobody can retroactively be in violation of the license, but they can be restricted i.r.t. upgrading to newer fair source versions. Since they now compete, they will need to use the open source version released under DOSP moving forward, typically 2 years out of date.

I'll be honest and say that I think that's totally fair.

[bornfreddy]

As always, read the actual license? It's not ppssible to define everything in just 2 words.