GitButler is now fair source

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Overview of “Fair Source” / FSL

  • “Fair Source” is framed as a middle ground between open source and proprietary:
    • Source is public.
    • You can use/modify/redistribute under restrictions that protect the vendor’s business.
    • After a delay (e.g., 2 years under the Functional Source License, FSL), code automatically becomes MIT/Apache-style open source (“delayed open source publication”, DOSP).
  • Advocates say this enables companies that would otherwise stay closed to publish code at all.

Business Motivation & Hyperscalers

  • Major driver: fear that hyperscalers will host a compatible SaaS using the same code and outcompete the original vendor.
  • Traditional open-core + cloud-hosting models are seen as fragile when AWS/GCP/Azure can undercut pricing and leverage their existing customer bases.
  • Some point to specific relicensing moves (ElasticSearch, Redis, etc.) as symptoms of this pressure plus VC expectations for high returns.

Comparison to Other Models

  • Open source:
    • Praised for user freedom, competition, vendor portability, and legal clarity.
    • Criticized as economically unsustainable for many maintainers; donations and corporate sponsorship often insufficient.
  • Open core:
    • Viewed by some as “freemium that withholds the useful bits.”
    • Others say it works when the free core is strong and the commercial features are well delimited.
  • Fair Source vs “source available”:
    • “Source available” is seen as vague; Fair Source tries to define a subset with public code, real usage rights, and mandatory DOSP.
    • FSL/FCL/BUSL are cited as examples under this umbrella.

User, Contributor, and Legal Concerns

  • Concerns about:
    • Vendor lock-in for at least the delay period (no competing hosting/support vendors).
    • Broad/ambiguous definitions of “competing use,” which can feel like a legal minefield.
    • CLAs that may give vendors more rights than contributors.
    • Potential chilling effects and legal gray areas compared to clean OSS licenses.
  • Some argue forks of relicensed projects are legally fine but acknowledge ongoing legal uncertainty.

Naming & Taxonomy Debate

  • “Fair Source” label is controversial:
    • Critics see it as lobbying/PR, implicitly suggesting other models are less “fair.”
    • Alternatives like “eventually-open source” or “head start” are suggested.
    • Proponents argue multiple specialized Fair Source licenses are needed for different monetization models and that any name would attract criticism.