Could ‘fair source’ software be the key to solving open source licensing disputes?

There’s a new software licensing structure in town, ‘fair source,’ and several startups have already signed up amid promises that the license will combine the best of both open and closed worlds.

Application monitoring software firm Sentry is responsible for devising the license, which it noted in a separate blog post. The firm has been joined by a host of other names in backing the move, including Codecov, GitButler, Keygen, PowerSync, Ptah.sh, and CodeCrafters also in support.

To be defined as ‘Fair Source Software (FSS),’ code must adhere to three key principles, according to the license webpage.

First and foremost, it must be publicly available to read, allow for use and modification with minimal restrictions to protect the producer’s business model, and undergo delayed Open Source publication (DOSP).

DOSP refers to an Open Source Initiative (OSI), through which software is initially deployed under a proprietary license before gradually being transitioned over to an Open Source license.

The chief selling point of fair source seems to be that it offers developers and firms a more secure financial model while avoiding any of the negative connotations associated with closed and proprietary.

Numerous firms have received backlash over abandoning the open source community, such as HashiCorp, which swapped to a proprietary license in 2023 before accusing OpenTofu of breaching this license in 2024.

Fair source could provide a way for companies to maintain some level of ownership over their code without incurring the wrath of open source developers for abandoning the community.

“The purpose of Fair Source is to legitimize the practice of companies meaningfully sharing access to the code for their core software products while retaining control of their roadmap and business model,” the license webpage reads.

Fair source is “not a terribly big deal”

On top of some of the controversial licensing changes, a big name in the open source space – veteran developer Bruce Perens – came out in criticism of the open licenses earlier this year.

Perens said they “aren’t working” and that developers in the open source space need more financial incentive to keep the ecosystem alive – “compensate developers fairly for their work,” he said.

Fair source seems to tout some solution to this problem by putting some focus back onto the financial element of software development.

OpenUK CEO Amanda Brock doesn’t think fair source is the answer though, telling ITPro that the new license is “not a terribly big deal” as the organization has “very limited traction” despite attempts to engage open source leadership.

While public source or distributed source matters, Brock said, it doesn’t need to be “defined beyond” a software with source code that’s public but not part of an OSI-approved license.

“Any further definition is unhelpful as it risks creating four categories of code,” Brock said.

Brock doubted that fair source will alter how “money is made” in the context of licensing structures, though allowed that it may “support understanding in the community.”

The key, however, is that it doesn’t attempt to make a new definition work, as that could be damaging – “if it tries to make a new definition work, that will not help and it will likely fail,” she said.

“Anecdotally, everyone hates the name which was probably a misstep if they want that engagement,” she added.