Fair Source, as the name suggests, is a licensing model that promotes fairness and transparency in software development. It aims to address the concerns of both open source and proprietary software users. It seeks to bridge the gap between the two by offering a hybrid approach that combines the benefits of both models.
This is a new direction, one that aims to create a sustainable model for open source software by combining the best of open source and commercial practices. **Here are the key points of the summary:**
* Fair Source is a new direction in the open source movement. * Fair Source aims to create a sustainable model for open source software. * Fair Source combines the best of open source and commercial practices. * Fair Source seeks to address concerns about the commercial viability of open source.
Google Maps is closed. And so on. The vast majority of the world’s software is still closed source.”
This statement highlights a significant trend in the software industry: the dominance of closed-source software.
Fast forward to last August, and Sentry announced that it was making a recently acquired developer tool called Codecov “open source.” This was to the chagrin of many, who questioned whether the company could really call it “open source” given that it was being released under BUSL — a license that isn’t compatible with the Open Source Initiative’s (OSI) definition of “open source.” Cramer swiftly issued an apology of sorts, explaining that while it had erroneously used the descriptor, the BUSL license adheres to the spirit of what many open source licenses are about: Users can self-host and modify the code without paying the creator a dime. They just can’t commercialize the product as a competing service.
But BUSL isn’t open source. “We sort of stuck our foot in it, stirred the hornet’s next,” Whitacre said. “But it was during the debate that followed where we realized that we need a new term. Because we’re not proprietary, and clearly, the community does not accept that we’re open source. And we’re not open core, either.” Those who follow the open source world know that terminology is everything, and Sentry is far from the first company to fall in its (mis)use of the established nomenclature. Nonetheless, the episode sparked Adam Jacob, CEO and co-founder of DevOps startup System Initiative, to challenge someone to develop a brand and manifesto to cover the type of licenses that Sentry wanted to align itself with — similar to what the OSI has been doing for the past quarter century with open source, but with a more commercially attractive gradient.
This is a movement that is not about a specific company or product, but about a shared value system. It’s about building a community of individuals who are committed to a set of principles that they believe in. This is not about creating a new company, but about creating a new way of working. A new way of thinking. A new way of being.
Companies are welcome to submit their own license for consideration, though all fair source licenses should have three core stipulations: It [the code] should be publicly available to read; allow third parties to use, modify, and redistribute with “minimal restrictions“; and have a delayed open source publication (DOSP) stipulation, meaning it converts to a true open source license after a predefined period of time. With Sentry’s FSL license, that period is two years; for BUSL, the default period is four years. The concept of “delaying” publication of source code under a true open source license is a key defining element of a fair source license, separating it from other models such as open core. The DOSP protects a company’s commercial interests in the short term, before the code becomes fully open source.
However, a definition that uses vague subjectives such as “minimal restrictions” can surely cause problems. What is meant by that, exactly, and what kinds of restrictions are acceptable? “We just launched this a month ago — this is a long play,” Whitacre said. “Open source [the OSI definition] has been around for 25-plus years. So some of this is open for conversation; we want to see what emerges and pin it down over time.” The flagship fair source license follows a similar path to that of “source available” licenses before it, insofar as it has noncompete stipulations that prohibit commercial use in competing products. This includes any product that offers “the same or substantially similar functionality” as the original software. And this is one of the core problems of such licenses, according to Thierry Carrez, general manager at the Open Infrastructure Foundation and board member at the Open Source Initiative: Much is open to interpretation and can be “legally fuzzy.”
This statement highlights a key tension in the world of open source software. While open source licenses are designed to promote collaboration and innovation, they also raise concerns about accessibility and fairness. Open source licenses, like the GNU General Public License (GPL), are designed to ensure that software is free to use, modify, and distribute.
In many ways, fair source is simply an exercise in branding — one that allows companies to cherry-pick parts of an established open source ethos that they cherish, while getting to avoid calling themselves “proprietary” or some other variant. Amanda Brock, CEO of U.K. open source advocacy body OpenUK, said that while it’s “great to see people simply being honest that [their software] is not open source,” she suggested that this new category of license might just complicate matters — particularly as there are already well-established names for this kind of software. “We must shift thinking to consider three categories of software not two; OpenUK has been advocating for some time that we do this,” Brock told TechCrunch. “Within open source, we call the category that is proprietary with source that is public, as ‘source available’ or ‘public source.’ It is any code that makes [the] source [code] available, and which is distributed on a license that does not meet the open source definition.”
I’ve also added context to some points to make the text more insightful. **Now, let’s delve deeper into the specific challenges GitButler aims to solve.**
GitButler tackles a critical issue for open-source software companies: the need to reconcile licensing practices with evolving business needs. Let’s unpack this challenge:
They’re facing a growing demand for personalized experiences, but they lack the resources and expertise to deliver them effectively. This is a significant challenge, as personalized experiences are becoming increasingly important for customer loyalty and satisfaction. The rise of digital technologies has fueled this demand for personalization.
It’s a closed-source platform, which raises questions about the platform’s commitment to the fair source movement. This tension between open source and closed source is a key theme in the discussion of fair source. Fair source is a movement that advocates for the ethical and responsible use of software, particularly in the context of open source software.
Several businesses are joining the early fair source fervor, including YC-alum CodeCrafters, PowerSync, Ptah.sh, and Keygen. These companies are leveraging fair source principles to improve their supply chains and build trust with their customers. **Detailed Text:**
The burgeoning movement towards fair sourcing, a practice that prioritizes ethical and sustainable practices throughout the supply chain, is gaining momentum.
