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
  • onlinepersonaOPEnglish
    43·
    8 months ago

    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

    • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
      26·
      8 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.

    • lemmyvore@feddit.nlEnglish
      101·
      8 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?

        • lemmyvore@feddit.nlEnglish
          221·
          8 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@kbin.social
            12·
            8 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.