TIL: FairCode is the software model Redis, ElasticSearch, etc. use (faircode.io)

submitted 3 weeks ago by onlinepersona@programming.dev to c/opensource@lemmy.ml

45 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com -2 points 3 weeks ago

Long text for a really short topic: ideology

Software can be free and open while not allowing megacorps to profit without kicking back.

Being in this community regularly feels like coming to some backwater town where people gasp if you take the lords name in vain.

Wake up. There is no „we make free software and everyone loves each other“. People helping get shut down because they „arent submitting PRs“ but open issues because the maintainers barely have the time to look into issues. If you ask people in this community what they do to help, they respond with i cant code as if that was the only way to help.

The companies sucking in the profits made off of honest people‘s work is kneecapping open source development.

The absolute best joke in it all is that „free and open source software“ isnt at all free. I‘m not free to have individuals use it for free and companies pay because tHaTs nOt fReE. It is thinly veiled corporate exploitation and both corpos and the people with open eyes know it.

[-] beyond@linkage.ds8.zone 8 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks 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@lemmy.giftedmc.com 1 points 3 weeks 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