Why fair source matters

I've been reflecting on the recent dramatic exchanges around Fizzy's non-compete O'Saasy License, on "open source," and on what certain terms communicate to the people who use and depend on the work of others. I hate the policing of terms, but I think I hate miscommunication more, and ambiguity even more.

The authors of Fizzy, namely DHH and Jason Fried of 37signals, claim that Fizzy is "open source" — but maybe not "Open Source™."

I agree with DHH that the OSI doesn't have a monopoly on the term, and never truly did. Putting "open" in close proximity to "source" communicates clearly to some, maybe even most.

But not all. Most definitely not all.

So the practical problem remains: different audiences hear different things when "open source" is used. And I think DHH and Jason would agree that miscommunication is bad communication.

That's why I think fair source matters. It isn't about defending the OSI or joining forces with the term-police. It's about communicating clearly, honestly, and with integrity about what a project offers:

• the gift of the source code;
• the real freedoms granted;
• the real limitations imposed;
• and the sustainability goals behind those choices.

Fair source lets a company say, in plain terms, "here's what you can do, here's what you can't, here's why, and here's how this fits into our long-term goals and stewardship of the software."

All with one term! — "fair source."

It removes the ambiguity that arises when overloading the term "open source." It removes the need for meaningless terms like "source-available." And it ends the drama!

I also think fair source aligns very closely with the values 37signals already stands for. Fair source, through DOSP, can quite literally codify the commitments 37signals has already made publicly — their "Until the End of the Internet" policy.

They can turn what accounts to — in the most respectable way possible — a pinky swear into something literally codified into the license text. An actual binding promise of longevity!

How cool would that be?

Ultimately, DHH objected, noting that OSI-approved obligations like the GPL's copyleft requirements can be far more onerous than a simple SaaS carve-out. I agree wholeheartedly, and I've written about the veiled restrictions of the GPL and AGPL quite a bit:

• The problem with open core
• The real problem with open core
• You can't rely on people being good
• Source-available is meaningless
• Longevity, or abandonware?
• Weaponized open source
• Whither open source?

But that's exactly why I believe further clarity is worth striving for. If the term "open source" already carries layers of contradictory meaning, and layers of approved double-speak, why not use a term like "fair source" that lets everyone start from an honest baseline?

A term that makes that double-speak obvious — a term that upholds the integrity of the authors. One that communicates clearly.

No risk of "open washing," no veils, no drama — just a straightforward statement of what the license means and what the authors intend.

We all care about open source. I know DHH does! I know I do! Keygen quite literally wouldn't exist without DHH and Ruby on Rails. So why can't we find a path where we can all get along?

Fair source needs champions. 37signals would be a great one.