Sentry Introduces "Fair Source" Licensing Model to Bridge Open and Proprietary Software
Sentry Introduces "Fair Source" Licensing Model to Bridge Open and Proprietary Software
A $3 billion startup, Sentry, has introduced a new licensing model called "fair source" to bridge the gap between proprietary and open source software. This new paradigm aims to align companies with open software development while avoiding the pitfalls of traditional open source licenses. Sentry, along with other companies like GitButler, is adopting this model to protect their commercial interests without fully committing to open source.
The fair source concept allows companies to share their core product's code publicly but with restrictions that prevent direct competition. This model includes licenses like the Functional Source License (FSL) and Business Source License (BUSL), which become fully open source after a set period. Sentry's head of open source, Chad Whitacre, emphasizes that open source is a development model, not a business model, and fair source offers a middle ground.
Critics argue that fair source licenses, with their noncompete clauses, are not truly open source and could create legal uncertainties. However, supporters like Scott Chacon, founder of GitButler, see it as a way to protect investments while still offering users significant access and freedom. The movement is still evolving, with Sentry and others open to community input and potential future governance changes.
In essence, fair source is a branding exercise that allows companies to embrace aspects of open source ethos while maintaining control over their core business value. It remains to be seen how this new licensing model will be received and adopted in the tech community.
Key Takeaways
- Fair Source Licensing Emerges: New "fair source" licenses aim to bridge open and proprietary software worlds, offering a middle ground.
- Sentry Pioneers Fair Source: Developer software company Sentry introduces "fair source" licenses, addressing commercial limitations of open source.
- Delayed Open Source Publication: Fair source licenses include a delayed open source publication (DOSP) feature, protecting commercial interests before full open sourcing.
- Terminology Troubles: Misuse of "open source" terminology by companies like Sentry highlights the need for clearer definitions in the software licensing landscape.
- Fair Source's Commercial Appeal: Fair source licenses allow companies to align with open source ethos while avoiding proprietary stigma, balancing innovation and business needs.
Analysis
The introduction of "fair source" licensing by Sentry and others aims to balance open source ethos with commercial interests, potentially affecting tech giants and startups alike. Short-term, this could lead to legal ambiguities and resistance from purists, but long-term, it might foster a more inclusive open source ecosystem. Investors in Sentry and similar firms may see increased valuation due to innovative business models, while traditional open source projects could face funding challenges. The success of fair source will hinge on community acceptance and regulatory clarity.
Did You Know?
- Fair Source Licensing: A licensing model that aims to bridge the gap between proprietary and open source software by allowing companies to share their core product's code publicly but with restrictions that prevent direct competition. This model includes licenses like the Functional Source License (FSL) and Business Source License (BUSL), which become fully open source after a set period.
- Functional Source License (FSL): A type of fair source license that allows for the public sharing of code with certain restrictions, such as noncompete clauses, to protect commercial interests. After a specified period, the code becomes fully open source, balancing the need for commercial protection with the ethos of open source development.
- Business Source License (BUSL): Another type of fair source license that includes a delayed open source publication (DOSP) feature. This license allows companies to maintain control over their core business value by restricting direct competition while still offering significant access and freedom to users, eventually transitioning to full open source status.