TIL: FairCode is the software model Redis, ElasticSearch, etc. use ( faircode.io )

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
fubarx ,

Let's not forget... the reason this type of licensing exists is because large cloud providers were taking a large code base and selling them as services . Often, the main path for the creators to make any money from their code is to offer a paid, managed tier, along with professional services. They would end up competing, and losing, against those cloud providers.

Not saying this kind of license is good or bad, but the reason is often not to stop self-hosting or screw contributors, but to maintain couple of the only pathways FOSS can bring in revenue.

rimu ,
@rimu@piefed.social avatar

The faircode model assumes that contributions from random outside people are minor and that the bulk of the work is done by the founder(s). To the founders there is little actual benefit from being an open source project, anyway. I can understand the attraction of the model in that situation.

My ideal OSS project would be receiving a steady stream of contributions from a wide variety of people without an elite sub group that considers themselves to be "the authors", which would be obviously unsuited to the faircode model. Sadly few projects achieve that and are largely the work of one person.

IMO it depends on the situation/project.

haui_lemmy ,
@haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com avatar

Damn this community is getting really toxic. Instead of addressing the huge elephant in the room (people getting jack shit for building great things and their labor being stolen by profit seeking entities), lets jump on the people who are trying to do something about it.

I think the idea of maintainers getting a kickback from downstream profits is a great thing and hugely better than normal foss.

P.S.: a system where you can just relicense the work of contributors with a CLA and profit off of them is not an inch better than this.

onlinepersona OP ,

So far, I haven't seen a realistic proposition for OSI opensource projects to get fairly compensated or protected from leechers like mega-corps. If you're some widely used project without marketing like xz, then nobody cares about financing you until something big happens. I'll just make a post asking what people realistically expect should be done, because it does pique my interest now.

Anti Commercial-AI license

haui_lemmy ,
@haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com avatar

I know mate. You know I pretty much stand behind 99% of your posts and comments. I feel the same way about this. But I'm taking real issue with the treatment the members of this sub give to people who are asking uncomfortable questions.

wiki_me ,

Create proprietary software project , sell the software and give all the profit to starving kids in africa beside taking in a modest salary (say the US median salary) and call fair code, it's more fair then hashicorp CEO getting something like 100K a month in salary and stocks.

delirious_owl ,
@delirious_owl@discuss.online avatar

Hashicorp is on this list

lemmyvore ,

I love that website. Now I have an easy way to find all the licenses and projects and companies I need to stay away from.

ReversalHatchery ,

Why though? Why do you think it's good that e.g. StealLabs can make use of OBS's actively and freely (as in, StealLabs does not pay a cent to OBS) maintained code, add their own stuff, no attributions, and give it away for a price? Not even for a price.. for a fucking monthly subscription!

In the above, StealLabs is the name of StreamLabs, but the former name is more descriptive.

lemmyvore ,

It's GPL, they have to also provide the source. And you benefit from all the rights they do.

"Business" licenses try to prevent competition while still benefiting from free contributions, and pass it as "fairness". But how is it fair for anybody except that particular company? What about the contributors? If OBS used such a license and reaped all the benefits would you still contribute to them?

ReversalHatchery ,

It's GPL, they have to also provide the source. And you benefit from all the rights they do.

They don't provide the source.

This is not a new thing, it's been happening for years.

If OBS used such a license and reaped all the benefits would you still contribute to them?

Yes, I would. I'm a user, not a corporation that wants to repackage it.

lemmyvore ,

If they don't obey GPL what makes you think they'd obey BSL?

jmcs ,

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.

onlinepersona OP ,

So a single entity is allowed to commercialize external contributions without any kind of reciprocity

Where are you getting this from? This isn't my understanding of what's described on the webpage.

Anti Commercial-AI license

lemmyvore ,

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?

dohpaz42 ,
@dohpaz42@lemmy.world avatar

Show me someone who didn’t read the linked article…

lemmyvore ,

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 ,
@Kata1yst@kbin.social avatar

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.

jmcs ,

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.

dohpaz42 ,
@dohpaz42@lemmy.world avatar

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!

jmcs ,

So if I want to improve their software I need to pay them. Got it.

dohpaz42 ,
@dohpaz42@lemmy.world avatar

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 , (edited )

"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 ,

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?

Ephera ,

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.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • kbinchat
  • All magazines
    •