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
  • dohpaz42@lemmy.worldEnglish
    34·
    8 months ago

    If only there was an article that described the monetization of such a model… oh, wait…

    We want people to make money off of their software, but we recognize that the community benefits from a project’s economic success. Within fair-code, creators have the exclusive right of commercializing their work, ensuring long-term profitability. Companies that wish to commercialize the software can contact the author and form a business relationship that benefits both parties!

    • jmcs
      111·
      8 months ago

      So if I want to improve their software I need to pay them. Got it.

      • dohpaz42@lemmy.worldEnglish
        211·
        8 months ago

        That has to be one of the laziest, obvious trolls I’ve seen in a while. Could you at least put a little more effort into understanding the thing you’re railing against and not showing your blatant ignorance? That is not what was said and you know it. Do better.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.todayEnglish
          3·
          8 months ago

          “Hey, developer, your software is just about perfect for my use case, I just need to make this one small change. Can I go ahead and do that?”

          "Sure, you can make that change, just as soon as you pay us $X. Oh, and we are planning on including that feature in the next release, so you can go ahead and buy that from us.

    • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
      4·
      8 months ago

      How much profit is Redis or Hashicorp kicking back to the people the contributed to it when it was FOSS? It’s just “Fair code” now to allow its “creators” to profit, right?

    • dsemy@lemm.eeEnglish
      4·
      8 months ago

      Without every single contributor assigning copyright to a single entity for their code, the only way to commercialize a program distributed under such a license is to get every single contributor to agree to it separately (or not use their code).

      If every single contributor assigns copyright to a single entity, the project is now controlled by it, and unless that entity was particularly nice with its contracts, those contributors are now powerless if (for example) this entity decides to change the license.