Interesting, that Fair Source License seems like the perfect example of how your software can simultaneously be open source software but not free software. It doesn't matter if it's open source if I can't modify it and deploy it to however many computers I want to.
The Fair Source license is an interesting innovation. Will individuals within large companies try out Fair Source software like they do open source software? Will teams adopt it without knowing whether there are other users at the company, opening themselves to violating the license terms? Will anyone look at the source in depth and contribute back?
I’m all for (ethical) innovations that enable companies to be built more efficiently... Ideology aside, it’s often practical matters that attract users and developers to open source software. They've chosen a different point along in the “how much to give away and under what restrictions” space to try out.
Thoughtful experimentation = good. That doesn't mean it will succeed. But failing to try new things will lead to less efficient innovation in the long run for our industry.
I have seen "Open Source" licenses which do not permit modification nor re-distribution. It's certainly not equivalent to the principle of Free Software.
Sounds like you want a license where you get to dictate exactly how any downstream user reuses your software, down to the details of the packaging, and prohibit modifications/forks/removals/etc.? But that's not really an open-source license at all, then.
The whole point of open-source software is that I can take a thing, decide that I only want 50% of it, rip out the other 50%, add on a bunch of new stuff, totally change some of the remaining stuff, use it for a new purpose, package it in a new way, undo a decision the maintainer made that I disagree with, etc. If you don't like people having that freedom, open-source just doesn't seem like the way to go. It sounds like you want a "freeware for verbatim distribution" proprietary-but-no-cost license.
And let's be clear - you can open source license it however you want. So you can, in fact, allow corporations to run their own installs while still disallowing those companies from reselling the software.
Absolutely true, but the reason someone licenses their software under an open source license at all is because they want it to be open source. Some developers may erraneously think this is a good open source license, when in fact it might not have the effect they intended.
I personally don't have a problem with any license. I think Free and Open Source software is important, though, and this is not it. The problem here is not the fact that there is a license that allows licencees to view source code. The problem is that this organisation wishes to replace open source software with their view.
(Note: I'm not going to talk about software freedom here, which is a subtly different perspective. I just want to talk about open source). The idea behind open source is that when I decide to use the software, I am not locked in to a single vendor. Not only do I have access to the source code, but I have permission to modify it and distribute it for any reason that I want.
It's that advance permission for modification and distribution that de-risks your project. If, in the future, I want to do something differently than the original author, I can. For example, imagine that I tie my infrastructure in to version 2 of the software, but they release version 3, removing most of the functionality that I depend on. I want to use version 2 and backport security changes from version 3 into version 2. Similarly, I want to distribute my changes so that anybody else that's in the same boat can pitch in on the backporting effort.
So, as an author, you give up some control of the ultimate destiny of your code. There are some advantages as well, though. If your customers take advantage of their ability to add features of their own choosing, you have turned customers into collaborators. In that way, you have a kind of consortium effect. However, you are in a privileged position, because you still own all the trademarks wrt to the project. So even if someone starts to compete against you, they can't piggy back on your marketing and sales efforts. Not only that, but if you choose a copy-left style license, they can't effectively compete unfairly against you because all of their modifications are also usable by you.
So it's a kind of balancing act. You get this low barrier of entry for participation of your customers and they get a substantially de-risked product.
There are lots and lots of licenses out there which permit the viewing of source code. It has been very popular with game engines for a long time now. Microsoft made the attempt (now abandoned, I think) of have the "Shared Source" license. Even back before free and open source was a thing, source code was often available, though there was no explicit license to use it.
This is not a "better" open source. It is objectively much worse at fulfilling the goals of open source software. Like I said, I don't care if they want to use licenses like that. I won't use their software, nor will I recommend that people accept a license like that. But I don't have a problem with them existing. I do have a problem with them pretending that what they have is an improvement on free and open source software.
I suppose being open source doesn't stop you from giving user licenses for money, though. True, people can just use your program by violating your license. From coder to coder that is way less likely than, for instance, between the movie industry and the movie viewers, though. And being open source, even the violating users might add value to your product by fixing bugs and adding features.
It may sound unfair but that is exactly what an open source license means: you release something for others to use without a payment requirement. If you are a developer and your intention is to make money then you should create a business around your project or if you find it unfair just stop releasing it under open source :)
But isn't that part of the point of open source? If you want people to have to pay for it in some way, it needs to be part of the license. The license is essentially free for all.
Most everything is open source these days though, with some projects reducing support for the community tier, and pushing their proprietary tier. A more interesting question is what happens if you 'open source' everything with a free license? What would the corporate and consumer landscape be then, compared to now? Won't that be cool.
Appreciate the feedback. I have a question for you: do you realize that making something open source means you lioeters the person gets to use it, but it is also possible that a corporation can use it and install hundreds of instances of it? I simply don't think that is fair. I think a license that makes usage free for personal use is fair, and a corporation can pay a fair price to deploy it.
I understand now that maybe HN is not the target audience for my app. The value of my app is runtime usage, not extending and modifying the source.
I am not well versed in the different types of licensing for Open Source, but after reading up the links you have posted in favor and against, I think calling your software Open Source is misleading. Great work with the project though, I can understand why you would not want a big company to come in and use your hard work to make instant profit if it was all Open Source. I have no solution, but that is my observation.
I have a different objection to Open Source, that companies can profit from its use without paying its developers a penny, and usually do. My preferred licence is Shared Source: you get the source, and it's free
(as in beer) for non-commercial use, and can be bought for commercial use.
reply