Hacker News Reader

Comment by the_mitsuhiko | Hacker News Reader

I see a real risk that we're throwing out the baby with the bathwater and will end up with a lot of useful code hidden behind terrible licenses. Rather than going source available with a dual licensed commercial license, maybe go the middle way of Fair Source[1] which gives you an exclusivity period for commercialization but later turns into Open Source.

Disclaimer: I'm one of the people behind that model.

[1]: https://fair.io/

View on HN

Parent's post explicitly listed FSL as a possible solution. We also recently adopted it in our startup. (Edit to add: I think his beef with FSL is just that it's not OSS. I like the "fair" term as sort of in-between commercial and FOSS).

Agree that if non-lawyers (or corporate lawyers with no experience in open source licensing) craft something, they might regret it down the road. Better to pick and choose between now plethora of available options.

I have no beef with FSL. FSL is totally fine.

I would just prefer to have more liability protection.

> I would just prefer to have more liability protection.

Would be curious what you have in mind. The FSL comes with a default no warranty disclaimer.

Specifically, a disclaimer of duty. https://yzena.com/yzena-noncommercial-license/#no-duty .

For why, see questions 33-36 at https://yzena.com/yzena-noncommercial-license-faq/ .

I'm not a lawyer but I think licenses like this have a potential to be very problematic. Even the termination clause of the GPL has turned out to be challenging and primarily is not an issue because it's being ignored / re-instantiated despite the license text. If a court however would ever rule on this, that might be problematic.

(Also the fact that this license was not written by a lawyer in itself seems … less than ideal)

That is why I need lawyer money.

But I have actually gotten halfway with a lawyer. A lawyer actually wrote the No Duty clause.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com