Bilingual

Reconsider
a day ago
- The author initially licensed Keygen under ELv2 and called it 'open source', but realized that caused miscommunication and was perceived as dishonest.
- After trying 'source-available' and other ambiguous terms, the author discovered Sentry's 'fair source' model with Delayed Open Source Publication (DOSP).
- DOSP adds a timer to a proprietary license, after which the code becomes truly open source, ensuring longevity even if the author abandons the project.
- The author was convinced by Sentry's founders to adopt DOSP, despite initial fear, because it benefits users and customers by backing up promises of longevity.
- The author wrote a new license blending FSL and ELv2, relicensed Keygen under DOSP, and adopted the 'fair source' label.
- The author calls on 37signals to reconsider their stance on open source terminology and codify their promise of longevity, as they already have that promise in spirit.
Why fair source matters
a day ago
- The author critiques the ambiguity of the term 'open source' and the recent drama over Fizzy's non-compete license.
- Fair source is proposed as a clearer term that communicates the source code gift, freedoms, limitations, and sustainability goals.
- Fair source removes ambiguity, replaces meaningless terms like 'source-available', and ends drama.
- The author suggests fair source aligns with 37signals' values and can codify their 'Until the End of the Internet' policy into license text.
- Despite DHH's objection about GPL being more onerous, fair source provides an honest baseline and avoids double-speak.
Whither Open Source?
a day ago
- Commercial open source software (COSS) uses the AGPL license to restrict user freedom and protect business interests, despite its deceptive marketing as promoting freedom.
- The AGPL's legal ambiguities create fear and uncertainty, leading to it being weaponized as 'scareware' to prevent competition and limit use.
- COSS businesses often depend on restrictive licenses like AGPL to avoid free-riders and competition, but this undermines true open source principles.
- Permissive licenses (e.g., MIT, Apache 2.0) often fail for COSS, leading to unsustainability and eventual relicensing.
- Fair source offers an honest alternative with clear non-compete clauses and delayed open source publication, balancing sustainability with transparency.
- Fair source ensures eventual open sourcing of proprietary code, protecting users and businesses without legal manipulation.
Longevity, or abandonware?
a day ago
- In typical business relationships, paid customers are prioritized over free users, but open core reverses this by offering 'longevity' to free users while leaving paying customers with abandonware.
- Under open core, free users can fork and maintain the core if the project is abandoned, but customers cannot legally modify proprietary bits after subscription ends.
- Promises by open core projects to open source proprietary bits are not codified in the license, making them unreliable for customers.
- The author relicensed from ELv2 to FCL (a fair source license) to fix the 'longevity' issue, ensuring both customers and users have a fail-safe via DOSP (Deferred Open Source Publication).
- Fair source (fair core) guarantees that after 2 years of abandonment or a bad direction, both core and proprietary bits become fully open source, providing longevity for customers.
- From a customer's perspective, the choice is between longevity (fair source) and abandonware (open core).
Source-available is meaningless
a day ago
- The term 'source-available' is essentially meaningless, implying only the freedom to read code without any additional freedoms.
- Many source-available licenses (e.g., FSL, BUSL, SSPL) actually grant freedoms to use, modify, and redistribute, but are mislabeled due to lack of a better term.
- A new term, 'fair source', is proposed with three clear principles: public availability, minimal restrictions to protect the producer's business model, and delayed open source publication (DOSP).
- Fair source aims to provide honesty in commercial open source, avoiding common dishonesty like AGPL traps or rug-pulls from open source to proprietary.
- Under DOSP, all fair source code will eventually become true open source, ensuring abandonment or bad directions don't lock users out forever.
- Authors are urged to be honest about their intent, choosing a term that reflects their true goals instead of misleading labels.
You can't rely on people being good
a day ago
- Assuming people are inherently good is dangerous; open source bets on goodwill which can fail.
- Open source licenses don't stop exploitation; mega-corporations can free-ride legally.
- You can't force ethical contributions; coercion can turn you into the villain.
- Fear of forking and underselling is real; be introspective about your motives.
- Open source is great for infrastructure but not core products; it often ends in rug-pull.
- Consider fair source as a middle ground between open and closed source.
The real problem with Open Core
a day ago
- Open core projects have a proprietary part that remains closed, making the overall system not truly open.
- Relying on an open core project's proprietary features is risky because the default outcome when the company shuts down is abandonment.
- Users of proprietary features in open core often face legal and engineering risks when trying to rebuild or continue use.
- Goodwill-based outcomes like open-sourcing proprietary code are rare; most default scenarios leave dependents without support.
- Fair Source offers a better model with Delayed Open Source Publication (DOSP), ensuring code becomes open source after a set period.
- Unlike open core, Fair Source provides long-term viability and true openness for the majority of users.
Licensing is packaging
a day ago
- Licensing is a key component of software packaging, influencing customer perception and adoption.
- Keygen's growth is attributed to reducing fear of vendor lock-in through a source-available model, not just a freemium offering.
- Fair Source licensing provides a continuity path, addressing customer concerns about long-term viability.
- Source-available models create virality and community engagement, driving adoption and market saturation.
- Closed-source lacks continuity options and distribution benefits compared to source-available or open-source models.
- Licensing is not a business model but a packaging lever; Fair Source balances openness and risk.
Keygen is now Fair Source
a day ago
- Keygen has relicensed from ELv2 to the Fair Core License (FCL), a Fair Source license that sits between Open Source and source-available.
- The FCL addresses ELv2's problem where users risk losing access to commercial features if the licensor goes out of business.
- Under FCL, commercial features are protected by a license key, and after two years, the code converts to an open source license (Apache 2.0).
- This approach provides longevity and continuity for users, while still protecting Keygen's business model without being predatory.
- The FCL is based on the Functional Source License (FSL) but adds limitations to protect license-key-protected features, ideal for 'open core' projects.

fair source

Reconsider

Why fair source matters

Whither Open Source?

Longevity, or abandonware?

Source-available is meaningless

You can't rely on people being good

The real problem with Open Core

Licensing is packaging

Keygen is now Fair Source