"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.
That said, "fair source" is a very confusing term. Not really much better.
The visibility of the source has no bearing if the source can be used, modified, distributed, or if the application is gratuitous or not.
No. "Open Source" has a precise definition that includes terms of use:
This is false.
Or do you mean in the specific context of the new usage of the term by AI companies, which totally contradicts the original usage?
Actually I think the definitions work (in practice) like this:
Open source means you can see the source, with a hint of other implications (which vary).
Source available means you can see the source, and is probably being used to exclude the extra implications of open source, but might not be.
Other terms exist and have unknown meanings and always will.
Now you're incorrect, just like before? :)
More seriously though, the word has a historically well-defined meaning, that lots of people put lots of time into defining really clearly, as others have linked to. It has precedence in courtrooms, lawyers have defined it, serious institutions have corrobated the existence of the meaning, etc etc.
You can choose to ignore that if you like, of course. You can argue for the word to be polysemic and have a new, second meaning, and you can even argue that the old meaning should be totally dropped and we just use this new meaning you're proposing.
But retroactively claiming that the word only ever had the meaning you say it has now is... odd, to put it politely.
Existing open source licenses leave you vulnerable to this.
"Source available" / "fair source" is one nice solution, but the open source purists hate it.
Another solution would be an even more viral open source license. Require that any users of your code make their entire company codebase also open source under the same licensing terms.
If the AGPL is "viral", we need a "pandemic": "Use this code and all of your company code, company docs and memos, manufacturing instructions, etc. must also be open and publicly available. Or contact us about an enterprise licensing fee."
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.
IMO the most interesting part of the fair source definition is the commitment to "delayed Open Source publication" https://opensource.org/delayed-open-source-publication
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 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).
https://forum.obsidian.md/t/is-it-true-that-obsidian-is-alre...
“Free software” curtails certain freedoms of downstream users. “Open source” means more than just the source being open to view.
And this is fine! But people have gotten so used to their definitions they forget to apply the same criteria to “fair source”.
But the critique was that "fair source software" doesn't communicate what that license is about whatsoever.
Just because some people decide to define a term doesn't mean that the words making up that term aren't confusing and misleading. Defining "fair source" without regard to common understandings of what's "fair" is guaranteed to leave a good chunk of the world disliking your terminology.
What is clear about “with minimal restrictions to protect the producer’s business model”? Don’t business models change over time? Doesn’t this suggest that if I were to stake my venture on such a “fair” element of software, it would be fine unless I turned out to succeed, in which case the producer could rightfully box me out (or, more likely, extort a ransom)?
Which, I suppose, is a roundabout way of saying: “fair” to whom? Such an “author-first source-available” license may well prevent the specific unfairness of AWS-style snarfage, but would seem to open the door to different kinds of unfairness years down the line. The absolutism of the OSS “zealots” seems much clearer, even with all its tradeoffs.
I do want to see a proper definition which could be explained better legally.
But the idea is pretty good in my opinion (unless you are one of those people who want open source to be free labour for your company)
My discomfort—setting aside whether such an idea is workable in license form—is mainly with the choice of a moralizing descriptor for such a license.
We are indeed trying to define it but this was a response to "implies some sense of 'fairness' which can mean drastically different things to people". It has a clear definition, but the interpretation and the consequence on that definition are in relation to a business. I don't think however that is any different to how the consequences of an Open Source license are specific to the license or the company that runs it. A GPL software with a CLA is very different than a GPL software without a CLA.
> Which, I suppose, is a roundabout way of saying: “fair” to whom?
The goal of the FSL is to ensure that you have aligned incentives as a company with all the users that you have, and you protect yourself against free loaders.
I wrote down my thoughts on a longer version a while back here: https://lucumr.pocoo.org/2024/9/23/fsl-agpl-open-source-busi...
That part is not something that a lot of folks running "source-available" want. It may have nothing to do with competition.
I license most of my stuff as MIT. It allows folks to reuse the source in any way they want (few people do, which is fine by me). Just don't come crying to me, if you mess things up.
I can easily envision authors of open-source projects being hit, if their stuff gets caught up in things like breaches, malware, or scamming. In many cases (in the US), the suits may not have merit, but they are still a major distraction. Just the suit can be crippling, and many suits can't be anti-SLAPPed.
There's a few reasons that I like to open my source:
- It allows folks to ensure that my stuff doesn't violate anyone else's IP.
- I would like to hear if I have made any big mistakes. Sometimes, someone may see that I'm doing something in a boneheaded way, and offer a correction (sometimes, in a nasty way, but I still appreciate the help).
- If there are problems with things like App Store reviews, or SDK bugs, the ability to point to the entire project, is helpful.
- I am sincerely interested in "giving back," and genuinely hope that folks (even if they are a bit "rough around the edges"), can learn from it.
On another note, I suspect that the use of "zealots" throughout the post, may be to encourage passionate response. Many folks like all the clicks that outrage brings.
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.
How do you know, that the application is actually working if you cannot build it properly (because i see cases of buildrecipes missing)
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.
I have no idea what fair beer means.
I think it's deep fried.