If a company comes and gives away its core product (Nginx, Hadoop, etc.), at some point, there's a need for $$ by the developers of that core software. The core product doesn't make revenue. So, the company has to create additional software for its revenue stream.
From then on, the developers of the core open-source project are incentivized to keep a dual class of solutions. That is, the developer's livelihood depends on no one making the core open source so easy to use that the additional software stops paying the bills.
A time-bound open-source clause ensures that everyone wants the best software. Yes, it means that users have less freedom than open-source users for a while. I think that's a great long-term trade-off for the users and the developers.
I get why a business wants this; "developer engagement" = "free work" in most situations. But these greedy attempts at getting everyone under one umbrella entirely misses the aspect of shared ownership that makes Open Source successful in the first place. Partially-open business software only attracts sycophants and abuse-cases to contribute, which only justifies a less-open approach.
If somebody does attempt to extort free labor, that’s on them; it’s not the fault of Fair Source, or Open Source for that matter. In that case, they should reap what they sow.
I hope you can see the value in a company sharing their core product with no strings attached. The world doesn't have to be so black and white i.r.t. OSS.
The positioning of "fair source" as a middle-ground between business and community is an industry-wide joke. Do it to assuage your paranoid customers or whatever, but don't convince yourself for a second that you're putting the community before yourself.
> I don't understand why I (or any Open Source contributor) would spend time supporting a product like this.
You might if it scratches your itch, you might not if it doesn't. Here is how I hope people engage with licenses like the FSL: when they start a business rather than going all closed source, they evaluate a license like the FSL. I think it's longer term a superior choice because it protects your business but also longer term ensures that what you create becomes a public good if you step away from it.
On the range of Open Source - Fair Source - Shared Source - Closed Source I would argue that Fair Source is a pretty decent compromise. Not for everybody, but I hope for a lot of folks out there.
That's the only argument in favor of it. Anyone that isn't in it for the money won't give your product a second look.
I'm not sure what your visibility is inside teams, but seeing one of these "BSL" or "fair source" licenses usually terminates the product evaluation with a laugh. People don't treat these licenses even remotely close to Open Source because they're not. They're a business that is spending money to promote an identity that goes against their core desires. I'd rather you be an honest moneygrubber instead of a business muppet wearing a friendly mask.
Community and public good is the first and only priority when developing Open Source software. Trust me when I say that nobody is fooled when you refuse to give these values top-billing in your list of priorities.
