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
  • Captain Beyond@linkage.ds8.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    There’s a certain irony, I think - the original free software movement was based on ensuring the users’ freedom to use, modify, and share software. “Open source” came about as a “business friendly” rebranding of Stallman’s movement (see Open source misses the point). Naturally, being friendly to business doesn’t mean business will be friendly back. That is to say, I acknowledge the unhealthy relationship between “business friendly open source” and the proprietary software industry.

    That said, it should be extremely obvious that most hardline free software supporters like Richard Stallman and Drew DeVault (https://drewdevault.com/2021/01/20/FOSS-is-to-surrender-your-monopoly.html) are far from “corporate bootlickers” the latter of which even runs an (actual) free software company (and yet also started this community fork of Redis).

    If you can’t make money from free software then feel free to sell proprietary software instead. What we take issue with is the attempt to co-opt the open source label, the attacks on real free software/open source, and (especially in this thread) the incessant name calling and accusations of bootlickery (while also characterizing anyone who pushes back as being “toxic”). Maybe we’re not just simping for Amazon here, maybe we actually see the forest for the trees and recognize the dangers of normalizing fauxpen source licenses.

    • haui@lemmy.giftedmc.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I acknowledge that you take the time and - in stark opposition to many other members of this community over many posts and months - keep a professional stance.

      The reason you‘re seeing namecalling is that you‘re nearly alone in communicating in a normal and constructive matter so the the fronts here are hardened a lot.

      That said, most hardline folks are either highly privileged (have enough money so they dont have to make money in their time) or plain acting in bad faith (not being developers/contributors/maintainers but having an opinion in the matter).

      So, stripping these away, you have a very heterogeneous group which could come to an agreement how to make both sides happy that is not „then use proprietary license“ because thats not fair to people making software you and I can use, change and fix if we so wish.

      Besides ideological reasons („if I cant do everything with it its not free“ and „maintainers dont deserve more than one-line-contributors“) there is very little reason to go hard line on this.

      And the „coopt open source label“ is also a populist argument because hard lining is coopting the whole thing in its own way. Nobody has the right to choose what a certain chain of words actually is. Language is developing and changes over time.

      Mark my words: Being „no negotioation“ on this topic is going to break the whole idea of FOSS and helps corpos and nobody else