The "Fair Source Software" is an interesting idea, but it's just a variant of software with a proprietary license to me.
I like the built-in commitment to open source the software after a period of time. That's the interesting part to me. (I'd drop the term "fair source software" -- whether it's fair or not depends on perspective and details -- and just call it delayed open source publication software.)
But let's be clear here: the idea is for the author to benefit from the popularity and acceptance of OSS while protecting their own financial interests. I think that's inherently a dodge. It's an effort to make it seem as free and open as possible, but if you figure out a way to make nice money off it, the author will come after you for payment, which means it's not free and open.
BTW, I'm not much of an OSS zealot. As a software developer, I heartily approve of software developers being paid for their efforts. I just think it should be done in an up-front manner.
I like the built-in commitment to open source the software after a period of time. That's the interesting part to me. (I'd drop the term "fair source software" -- whether it's fair or not depends on perspective and details -- and just call it delayed open source publication software.)
But let's be clear here: the idea is for the author to benefit from the popularity and acceptance of OSS while protecting their own financial interests. I think that's inherently a dodge. It's an effort to make it seem as free and open as possible, but if you figure out a way to make nice money off it, the author will come after you for payment, which means it's not free and open.
BTW, I'm not much of an OSS zealot. As a software developer, I heartily approve of software developers being paid for their efforts. I just think it should be done in an up-front manner.