Fair Source licensing is the worst thing to happen to open source-definitely ma
The article critiques Fair Source licensing for contradicting open source principles, introducing complexity for developers, and suggests a shift towards service-based models as software sales decline.
Read original article
The article critiques Fair Source licensing, arguing that it undermines the principles of open source software. Fair Source allows users to view source code and use software for free up to a certain number of users, but requires payment once the software gains popularity. This model is seen as contradictory to the essence of open source, which promotes freedom in usage, modification, and redistribution without financial barriers. The author contends that Fair Source introduces unnecessary complexity and confusion for developers, who prefer clear licensing terms. The piece also highlights a broader trend where software sales are declining, while cloud-based services are thriving. The author suggests that attempts to monetize software through restrictive licenses are misguided, as the market has shifted towards service-based models rather than traditional software sales. Ultimately, the article argues that Fair Source is a regressive approach that fails to align with the current landscape of software development and distribution.
- Fair Source licensing is criticized for contradicting open source principles.
- It allows free use for a limited number of users but requires payment for popular software.
- The model introduces complexity and confusion for developers.
- Software sales are declining, while cloud services are on the rise.
- The article advocates for a shift towards service-based models rather than restrictive licensing.
6 commentsZero codebases choose between FOSS or Fair Source. The choice is always between Fair Source and completely closed.
"True open source"
"force freedom on downstream developers"
GPL and BSD style licenses are both "true open source". If you are the upstream you literally aren't contained by any license and if you are downstream you are only constrained to offer exactly what you received and are free to write it yourself if that is too big of an ask.
> For some bizarro reason, open source companies keep trying to monetize software even as the rest of the world has moved on
The bizarro reason is that people literally need to eat. They can't "move on" unless they want to move on into the woods to live like a hobo. We either have to give up entirely on independent devs or find some way to pay them.
> It's the wrong way to treat developers
You aren't being mistreated if you don't like the license something is offered under.
Writer is...gross.
I really like the Functional Source License (FSL) (the main license under the Fair Source brand), and we've adopted it at my company. It's not open source, and shouldn't be compared with that. But you do get a lot of the same advantages as you'd get from an open-source product, such as being able to inspect the source code to get an understanding of how the system works.
Isn't this the point? If you release software that runs your service as open-source, you want to prevent Amazon coming along and making their own cloud service based on your code.