Fair-code is not a software license. It describes a software model where software:

  • is generally free to use and can be distributed by anybody
  • has its source code openly available
  • can be extended by anybody in public and private communities
  • is commercially restricted by its authors
  • @jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
    33•2 months ago

    So a single entity is allowed to commercialize external contributions without any kind of reciprocity. Somehow it sounds worse to me than Shared Source.

    If you are worried about leeches just use AGPL and call it a day.

    • Ephera
      7•2 months ago

      Yeah, this model doesn’t work as a long-term solution in my eyes, because as a potential open-source contributor, I do not see myself ever contributing to such a project.

      I mean, I am avoiding anything which requires a CLA, in particular if I’d need to hand copyright over to a for-profit organization, but in those cases, because I don’t yet know, if I’ll get fucked over. With this “FairCode” thingamabob, I would feel fucked-over right away.

      And that ultimately breaks with why open-source is popular. Because everyone can scratch their itch and improve it for everyone else. If it’s just a for-profit organization dumping their source code, that’s going to fall off in quality quickly.

      • @jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
        25•2 months ago

        One way of making software more fair is by allowing developers to profit. Many companies today invest resources into taking an existing project and copying the ongoing work of the project creators; afterwards, creating and maintaining a hosted version using their code. In a fair circumstance, should they benefit from using the software, they could add certain features, fix bugs and support the community of users enjoying the product. In many cases they do, but fair-code ensures that this can happen by bringing businesses to the negotiation table when it comes to commercializing software.

        This is bullshit when only a set of developers are allowed to profit. Every single project with a non-commercial license I know has an exception for the company that owns the repo. At that point external contributions are not open or fair anything, it’s a company stealing labour.

        Either licenses are symmetrical or they are inherently unfair, and calling it Fair is doublespeak.

      • lemmyvoreEnglish
        9•2 months ago

        They’re getting it from the facts. 😄

        The question is, where are you getting the “fair” moniker from? Who is it fair for? What makes it so much more fair than the other “models” that it’s the only one that deserves to be called that?

          • lemmyvoreEnglish
            20•2 months ago

            It’s not an article, it’s a propaganda website that tries to say that black is white. Just slapping a “fair” or “open” label on something doesn’t make it so. Which brings us back to my questions: if this is what fair looks like, what does it make software licenses which are l aren’t listed there? Are those “unfair”? To whom?

            • Kata1yst
              12•2 months ago

              They even literally have a section of the article that says they “see Fair Software as an alternative model to the free and open source software model”, and they think it’s superior because the “developers can profit”.

              Newsflash: the developers usually see fractions of those cents while most of the money goes to the management and shareholders of the company that employs them. Hmm, doesn’t seem fair to me.

              Also, developers can and do profit from FOSS in many ways, but the most popular models are with commercial support, SaaS offerings, and additional functionality (like providing a web interface, clustering manager or other external piece of the puzzle to solve the problem at scale in enterprise).

              Like you said so succinctly: propaganda website to make rug pullers like Elastic and Hashicorp look better.

    • @dohpaz42@lemmy.worldEnglish
      -1•2 months ago

      If only there was an article that described the monetization of such a model… oh, wait…

      We want people to make money off of their software, but we recognize that the community benefits from a project’s economic success. Within fair-code, creators have the exclusive right of commercializing their work, ensuring long-term profitability. Companies that wish to commercialize the software can contact the author and form a business relationship that benefits both parties!

        • @dohpaz42@lemmy.worldEnglish
          -9•2 months ago

          That has to be one of the laziest, obvious trolls I’ve seen in a while. Could you at least put a little more effort into understanding the thing you’re railing against and not showing your blatant ignorance? That is not what was said and you know it. Do better.

          • @Rivalarrival@lemmy.todayEnglish
            3•2 months ago

            “Hey, developer, your software is just about perfect for my use case, I just need to make this one small change. Can I go ahead and do that?”

            "Sure, you can make that change, just as soon as you pay us $X. Oh, and we are planning on including that feature in the next release, so you can go ahead and buy that from us.

      • @mosiacmango@lemm.ee
        4•2 months ago

        How much profit is Redis or Hashicorp kicking back to the people the contributed to it when it was FOSS? It’s just “Fair code” now to allow its “creators” to profit, right?

      • @dsemy@lemm.eeEnglish
        4•2 months ago

        Without every single contributor assigning copyright to a single entity for their code, the only way to commercialize a program distributed under such a license is to get every single contributor to agree to it separately (or not use their code).

        If every single contributor assigns copyright to a single entity, the project is now controlled by it, and unless that entity was particularly nice with its contracts, those contributors are now powerless if (for example) this entity decides to change the license.