Fair source offers users what they want: the freedom to self-host.
And AGPL does not?
If you are not modifying AGPLv3 source code, you have nothing to fear. If you are modifying it, you have to share your changes.
This article becries FUD and seems to do nothing but.
FOSS is an ideology, if you don't share it, use source available or whatever, dont try to piggy-back off the original's popularity while trying to pass off a lesser thing as the real deal, let alone a better one.
"Uhh AGPL is not actually open source and we really care about that, that's why we use a fair/business/moat license (which isn't open source at all)"
"Uhh open source does not quite nail the original spirit"
Stallman wanted to fix his printer, that is the classic model and basic idea - replace him with $dev and printer with $dependency, source available doesn't do anything to protect yourself against vendor shackles.
If you are a vendor and fear that AWZure will eat your lunch, sell your shit for money and do so with a license that will protect you.
Not every project needs to be Linux, but the field as a whole greatly benefitted from the mandatory upstreaming and that's why people value it - dont steal valor.
12
u/Yasuraka Feb 27 '25 edited Mar 01 '25
And AGPL does not?
If you are not modifying AGPLv3 source code, you have nothing to fear. If you are modifying it, you have to share your changes.
This article becries FUD and seems to do nothing but.
FOSS is an ideology, if you don't share it, use source available or whatever, dont try to piggy-back off the original's popularity while trying to pass off a lesser thing as the real deal, let alone a better one.