Fair Source: Sustainability with no customer risk

https://pepicrft.me/blog/2024/08/13/open-tuist

by ezekg • 2 years ago

30 66 2 years ago

pepicrft.me

ezekg9• 2 years ago

Prior musings on the topic from the author:

- https://pepicrft.me/blog/2024/08/02/commercial-oss

- https://pepicrft.me/blog/2024/07/22/openness-as-a-tool-of-tr...

- https://pepicrft.me/blog/2024/07/09/when-you-are-open

Sytten3• 2 years ago

Is there a similar license for non SaaS software? I feel the B2C space didnt get the same attention for those new licenses.

ezekg9• 2 years ago

There's the Fair Core License [0] for projects that monetize self-hosting with commercial features e.g. an "open core"-style project. Is that what you're thinking? Or what's the difference between B2B and B2C in your case?

[0] https://fcl.dev

Sytten3• 2 years ago

Nah I am selling software you install on your computer so that probably wont work

wmf3• 2 years ago

For B2C you might be better off monetizing with trademarks/branding and marketing.

There's also the FUTO License https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/grayjay/-/blob/master... but since donations don't work...

arccy• 2 years ago

I don't see why you couldn't use it for non SaaS, the Fair Source License (FSL) [1] they're using here doesn't say anything about hosting, only competition in the form of:

- substitutes for the Software; - substitutes for any other product or service we offer using the Software that exists as of the date we make the Software available; or - offers the same or substantially similar functionality as the Software.

I'm not sure what you'd target with B2C, these licenses exist explicitly to allow end users to run their own versions for private use.

[1] https://fsl.software/

Sytten3• 2 years ago

Because I am selling to thinkerers so if the license allows redistribution of modified software that say removes limitations of pricing tiers then it is not good.

Zambyte3• 2 years ago

Open Source and permissive licenses like MIT and Apache bring freedom but don’t protect the business. Companies can try to benefit from it in a predatory way [...]

I get that this post is about choosing a certain non-Free license, but it seems very weird to me to describe businesses leveraging the permissive terms of permissive licenses as "predatory" behavior. Permissive licenses were created in response to hereditary licenses like the GPL specifically to allow the kind of behavior that the author is referring to as "predatory". Blaming anyone but yourself for choosing to license your code with a license designed to enable behavior you don't like seems quite silly.

Other organizations seek protection by adopting AGPLv3, which many companies have policies against, and selling dual licenses and enterprise features. Those businesses are often referred to as Open Core.

Open core is related to, but not the same as the dual licensing pattern they are describing. Open core is basically the same as dual licensing, but the different licenses actually apply to different sets of software under the Open core model.

nickpsecurity3• 2 years ago

Some people release software under a permissive license, people use it according to the terms of that license, and they get mad about it. It’s unreal.

If they want specific behaviors, they should put them in the license or in a contract. Businesses will probably not use it over permissive software, though.

nope1000• 2 years ago

If they want specific behaviours, they should put them in the license

But that's exactly the point of the article, isn't it?

evanjrowley• 2 years ago

people use it according to the terms of that license, and they get mad about it

Whenever permissively licensed software is used, is it acceptable to have an expectation that one should be able to use it against the business that originally created it?

oddevan• 2 years ago

What's the risk for businesses in a dual-license situation? The public can use the AGPL, or the business can get a private license with no viral stipulations at all. Is it just the FUD around a GPL-like license?

(Serious question, as this is the business model I'm pursuing.)

nickpsecurity3• 2 years ago

Part of the problem is: “what can I do with the commercial source?”

The open-source code lets you modify and distribute. There’s either no risk (permissive) or well-understood. Proprietary licenses often don’t allow freedoms like that. So, some of the new licenses are addressing modification and redistribution of source-available, proprietary code.

Far as AGPL, it’s very unpopular even among FOSS users. Just using it almost guarantees less adoption of your code. Whether that’s fair or not, I’m just saying it’s a reality that you might be limiting the impact of FOSS code if it’s AGPL.

meiraleal2• 2 years ago

Far as AGPL, it’s very unpopular even among FOSS users

Citation, please. I would say this is very untrue but would like to see the sources of this claim. I hope you are not calling Big tech employees "FOSS users".

SpicyLemonZest2• 2 years ago

I wouldn't really say there's a risk. It's just inferior to an open core model in most cases. The private license deters independent contributions, the AGPL license prevents small businesses who can't yet afford your system from using it, and large corporations don't care at all that your full source code is publicly available.

ezekg9• 2 years ago

I would argue that fair core is, in a lot of cases (not all ofc), superior in the long run to open core, because under fair core, the entire code base eventually becomes open source, unlike open core where commercial features remain proprietary/closed indefinitely. There are pros and cons of both that need to be weighed ofc, but I personally really like fair core.

(Disclaimer: I contributed to the FCL: https://fcl.dev)

davidgerard5• 2 years ago

AGPL license prevents small businesses who can't yet afford your system from using it

what? This sentence appears to be literally untrue. In what way?

max-privatevoid5• 2 years ago

I think the idea that businesses can't use GPL- or AGPL-licensed code is absolutely ridiculous. This false premise seems to be omnipresent in every license discussion.

Zambyte3• 2 years ago

I think this is where that premise originated: https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl...

While businesses can obviously use AGPL licensed software, some (like Google) explicitly choose not to.

max-privatevoid5• 2 years ago

Perhaps one day we will have a way to monetize software development that works for true Free Software and doesn't require these bullshit openwashing licenses.

ezekg9• 2 years ago

I don't really follow how fair source is openwashing.

davidgerard5• 2 years ago

This entire proposal is extremely clearly yet another attempt to promote a non-Open Source license in the same spaces, which is why it mentions open source licenses so much. I don't see how anyone could make out that it isn't.

TheChaplain• 2 years ago

Then how does it work if I haven't started a business yet?

I invent something, AWS find it useful and start providing it as a service.

Now I want a piece of the action and start a business myself.

Does that means AWS have to stop offering the service?

Also same if I change direction of my business, to begin competing with a company providing the service.

If that is the case, I don't see why companies would touch anything with that license...

stavros3• 2 years ago

If you're starting a project with the intent of eventually making it into a business, you use this license and AWS doesn't touch it. If you're starting a project with the intent of always keeping it FOSS, you use MIT and don't care what AWS does.

Sentry's license is a fantastic alternative to just never opening up the source, and that's how we should be thinking about it.

cge• 2 years ago

While I'm not quite sure what my opinion on this license is yet, it does appear to try to at least partially address that.

Whether or not you are offering the software itself as a service, the license does not allow it to be commercially offered as a service directly at all.

For services using the software, it prohibits the user making the software available to others as part of 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", with the "Software" being "each version of the software".

That would seem to mean, for simply using the software, that AWS could continue offering the service, but after that point, would not be able to update to the next version of the software. It seems like the other prohibitions would prevent them from forking it, but possibly not from working around the old version in other code.

In practice, it would likely mean no one would use the software commercially for two years, or would simply use two-year-outdated versions, perhaps with patches.

ensignavenger2• 2 years ago

The Functional Source License says "A Competing Use means making the Software available to others in a commercial product or service that:

1) substitutes for the Software; 2) substitutes for any other product or service we offer using the Software that exists as of the date we make the Software available; 3) or offers the same or substantially similar functionality as the Software."

So if you haven't started your business yet when you make the release, the second criteria wouldn't have any effect. Once you start your business, any release you make after that point would have that restriction. If you change your business, only releases made after you change your business would be restricted in regards tot he new business, and releases made prior would be restricted in regards to your prior business.

Honestly, its a lot to keep track of for a user, and a lot of risk, I would always prefer open source alternatives.

stavros3• 2 years ago

"Fair Source" strikes me as a great idea, but I see many many people misunderstand the intent, and being mad at the company for not using a FOSS license. However, that was never the choice: The choice was always between "fair source" and "closed source", and I'm glad a reasonably open alternative to closed source exists.

wmf3• 2 years ago

We're still in the hangover period from when VCs would shovel money into open-source startups that had no business model. Fair source feels like a step down from that.

stavros3• 2 years ago

And it's a smaller step down than closing the source completely.

woodruffw3• 2 years ago

I think it’s a great idea, but I’d love to see a little bit more consideration around labeling one’s licensing scheme as the “fair” one.

Intuitively: if I named my political party “the party without stinky feet,” it’s clear that I’m indirectly saying that other parties do have stinky feet. In a similar manner, labeling yourself the “fair” one indirectly suggests that other licensing schemes, including OSS ones, are somehow unfair.

LoganDark5• 2 years ago

Open-source licenses absolutely can be unfair. If a company takes your MIT-licensed software and builds a huge enterprise on it and gives you none of the money? That's unfair for you. But with closed-source software, it's unfair for everyone who uses it. So imagine if there were some sort of middle ground. (I'm not currently aware of a good one, lol)

I'm not talking about if someone uses left-pad as part of a billion LOC project, but more like if a company builds its entire stack on top of something like, say, ffmpeg, or ImageMagick, and the original devs never see even a smidgeon of thanks.

eikenberry3• 2 years ago

Does is require a CLA? That's the deal breaker for me as distributed license ownership is one of the most important ways free software is kept free. Changing the license of a large free software project should be hard/impossible.

the_mitsuhiko2• 2 years ago

The FSL and other licenses are not special when it comes to how the contributions are managed. In theory every contribution needs a CLA or something similar regardless of where you contribute it accept contributions.

That most projects don’t require that is typically a result of “it doesn’t matter until it matters”.

eikenberry3• 2 years ago

Not requiring a CLA doesn't necessarily mean you just didn't think of it... you can not require a CLA on purpose. To spread ownership around to enough people to make it much, much harder to change the license. To make the license as sticky as possible.

thayne• 2 years ago

I think the users of these licenses would either have to have a CLA, or have the license explicitly name the company that gets the special rights to make commercial products from it. Otherwise contributors might be able to claim the company isn't complying with its own license.

davidgerard5• 2 years ago

Yet another way to spell "proprietary" - who says tech can't invent new things?

Why is it all these companies try to change the meaning of "open source" rather than open their source?

bigstrat2003• 2 years ago

They very specifically are not using the term "open source", so your objection is kind of unreasonable.

davidgerard5• 2 years ago

That's technically correct from a certain point of view. However, that's the debate they're throwing this into, and it's extremely clear that is. It is not reasonable to assume they've said magic words that make this proposal not just another entry in that precise debate. This is 100% an attempt at openwashing.

aaron695• 2 years ago

Fair Source seems great and a really good move forward.

2 years is constant pressure on the creator to be innovative, maintained and secure. Then two years ~public domain compared to Disney's 95 years or patents 20 years.

GPL is somewhat broken, AGPL is so broken it's not fit for purpose, it's un-enforceable.

MIT is amazing, but people need money.

The only concern is if people start forking licenses and making it all a mess. MIT (or freer) matters, a short time period also matters. People need to stick together on one license.

ranger_danger• 2 years ago

All licenses are only as useful as your individual ability to enforce it in a court, possibly against a megacorp.

max-privatevoid5• 2 years ago

How is the AGPL unenforcable?

Fair Source: Sustainability with no customer risk

Related Stories