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
  • dsemy@lemm.eeEnglish
    1·
    8 months ago

    I feel like most people arguing against this stuff dont really play these scenarios through and always have the big scummy company in mind that coopts this honest idea.

    In practice it has been scummy companies using these licenses so far.

    If you use these licenses as a maintainer and don’t require a CLA, basically no one (including you) can profit off the code. This is obviously worse than the current situation IMO.

    Requiring a CLA will reduce contributions (especially when using these licenses IMO), which will hurt your project.

    In this fictional situation where you write noteworthy amounts of code for the software I maintain alone, which already gets used by revenue-producing entities and earns some money, you would rightfully ask to be taken on as maintainer and become part of the group profiting from the software, no?

    I would rightfully ask, but you could just refuse. You will become (in this scenario) the company leeching off a developer. And if I’m passionate about the project, I’ll probably keep contributing, since I won’t be able to profit from a fork anyway.

    There are many more issues with this idea - what if the maintainer disappears? (say someone forked the project and continued development - with these licenses the fork can’t be monetized)

    What about the fact that once you sign a CLA you basically have to trust the maintainer/company to not just relicense the code under whatever terms they want (this is not theoretical, ElasticSearch used this method to change to a “fair code” license).

    • haui@lemmy.giftedmc.com
      1·
      8 months ago

      Thanks for elaborating. I can see your point.

      I would rightfully ask, but you could just refuse. You will become (in this scenario) the company leeching off a developer. And if I’m passionate about the project, I’ll probably keep contributing, since I won’t be able to profit from a fork anyway.

      And what would change from now for you personally? You dont get paid now but with a fair license the maintainer (and the project) would get paid… which they do under commercial licenses anyway.

      • dsemy@lemm.eeEnglish
        2·
        8 months ago

        With a free license I could get paid though (and the maintainer and project could, too), I would just have to do the work myself to make it happen (by starting a company offering enterprise support for businesses using the project, for example).

        Don’t expect that just because you use a “fair code” license you will be paid - it’s likely that companies would just prefer to use a free software project instead (just like today when companies almost never use AGPL licensed code).

        • haui@lemmy.giftedmc.com
          1·
          8 months ago

          With a free license I could get paid though (and the maintainer and project could, too), I would just have to do the work myself to make it happen (by starting a company offering enterprise support for businesses using the project, for example).

          I get that. I dont know if you ever built a company but I did, multiple. And that is completely different from coding. Someone can deserve to be paid without opening a company imo.

          Don’t expect that just because you use a “fair code” license you will be paid - it’s likely that companies would just prefer to use a free software project instead (just like today when companies almost never use AGPL licensed code).

          I dont expect to get paid because I use a certain license. I expect to get paid if someone uses my work to make money with it. Your argument also has two counters:

          1. companies have stated publicly that they would pay if they had to but they cant if its optional, especially corpos.
          2. just because it is free of charge doesnt mean nobody pays the price. Atm its the same as exploiting poor people or children. They have to comply and be happy about it. People who dont have to make money speak from insane privilege.
          • dsemy@lemm.eeEnglish
            1·
            8 months ago

            But this is contrary to what is actually happening - when ElasticSearch changed to a “fair code” license, Amazon forked the last version and now maintain OpenSearch.

            If you created a new project from scratch which is uniquely useful then sure, companies will probably pay. But what happens if a free competitor pops up? Or if one already exists? I don’t see corporations paying for stuff they can get for free.

            I dont expect to get paid because I use a certain license.

            Then how are you expecting to get paid? It’s not like with these licenses you would automatically get paid when someone uses your code. You still need to do non-trivial and non-development related work to form some business relationship with these companies

            • haui@lemmy.giftedmc.com
              1·
              8 months ago

              That is one example. I don’t know the name of the fallacy but this is one. Besides that, it should be illegal for corporations to use any code without paying or contributing anyway.

              We are going in circles. I‘m sure you mean well so I‘m just gonna agree to disagree here and walk away. Good luck and have a nice day.