more license options needed

[xenoterracide]

Here's what I, a developer, have observed and need

Java 8, still in use, released 2014 (long maintenance cycle)
PostgreSQL 5-year maintenance cycle (last I checked)

I'm currently building toys, but my toys aren't SaaS. I don't like the exploitative labor scenario any more than SaaS companies do, and I don't see a license that fits the needs of cli tools and libraries. If you look at the two above, the current Fair Source Licenses wouldn't meet their needs, even if they wanted to.

[ezekg]

I'm not really sure I fully understand what the problem is here. Can you give a more concrete example? What's your use-case, and what would the ideal license look like given that use-case, which one of the current licenses don't solve?

Regardless, there's nothing stopping you from writing a new license and then eventually applying to have it recognized as a Fair Source license, given it abides by the Fair Source Definition and is in use in the real world.

[xenoterracide]

there's nothing stopping you from writing a new license

I am not a lawyer, and most developers aren't.

Let's say I write a library or an application. I'll share a real-world case where open source is failing and abusing developers. Open-source maintainers are overworked and unpaid, even though corporations make billions off their work. I'm not speaking for these projects, and my work isn't being used. I'd rather not run into a "bait and switch" reaction.

• xz: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XZ_Utils_backdoor
• ffmpeg: https://thenewstack.io/ffmpeg-to-google-fund-us-or-stop-sending-bugs/

As mentioned, things like Java and Postgres have long maintenance cycles, so 2 or even 4 years wouldn't be enough. BUSL-like parameters seem more appropriate. 5-year maintenance cycle? cool. I don't expect these projects to change, but if they did, they'd need to write their own license today, which would defeat the "more standard approach".

A Permitted Purpose is any purpose other than a Competing Use. A Competing Use means making the Software available to others in a commercial product or service that:

So, if FFmpeg wanted to move to fair source, how would this help them? Literally, a consumer of ffmpeg wouldn't have to compete with it. A web browser like Chrome doesn't have to compete with it; it's just bundling it. I'm not sure what the best move is for them if they want to "fair source" things.

My immediate task is to retool a Gradle plugin into a Java application. It's easy to use as a library, and I make those too. I basically want to deny profit extraction without compensation. I don't really feel the need to do something like a license key, though. For me, it's "if you're using this and could afford to pay me, you should be paying me." I realize that's a broad statement. All I'm doing is creating a version string derived from git, and automatically compatible with SemVer, Gradle, and Maven. It's stupid, but at the same time, I'm tired of watching my desire to contribute to open source projects in ways other than bugs that don't get me paid; work usually says, "No, we own all your things, even if it would benefit us to have you fix that bug". That lack of willingness to contribute either financially or contributions is something I'm fed up with.

I doubt any of this helped with what you're really asking, though. I'm just wanting something that protects the xz's and ffmpeg's of the world.

complete tangent. I wish y'all could figure out how to get the SSPL people on this side, too, because I think we need to basically "fork" the open source movement to solve this problem, and multiple people seem to think that's true. Right now, though, all the licenses pertain to the SaaS market, and the community is divided. Additionally, listing MariaDB on fair.io would help the case. I had someone argue with me the other day about how bad proprietary is after I said fair source... education is a problem... and it's hard to do without building more unity.

[ljharb]

That's not really what "fair source" is about, though - licenses that attempt to compel OSS monetization are something different, like https://os.cash and others.