Written by
Ludovic Dubost
, Founder and CEO
I recently read Jan Oberhauser's post in which be renewed n8n's commitment to the "Fair Code" approach and noticed that the article sparked some debates about software licensing, particularly about the implications for Fair Code, Fair Source, and open-source businesses.
This article is in no way a criticism to people that choose anything else than AGPL and LGPL licenses. I greatly admire people from our ecosystem that strive to balance the financial pressures of running a business with the principles of open source (it is no easy feat).
I am writing this article only to present the perspective of a 20-years open-source business that has always strived to keep the open-source principles alive.
I also think it is important to discuss the nuances of this topic and why open source is essential for the software ecosystem.
- Differences between fair code, fair source, and open source
- Challenge #1: Vendor lock in
- Challenge #2: Future integrations
- Challenge #3: Pleasing investors
- Solutions for financing open source
- Moving forward
Differences between fair code, fair source, and open source
The terms "Fair Code", "Fair Source", and "open source" represent different approaches to how software can be used, shared, and commercialized, each with significant implications for developers, users, and the sustainability of software businesses.
At their core, all 3 models aim to make software accessible and promote innovation. They overlap in their commitment to transparency and the availability of the source code.
However, they diverge significantly in how they approach the commercialization and sustainability of software:
- Open source is all about freedom and community-driven innovation, guaranteeing users the right to use, modify and distribute software however they see fit. The challenge of open source is that it relies heavily on voluntary contributions and external funding to sustain itself.
- But, from the 20 years of running an open-source business, I can assure you that this is a realistic and attainable goal, even if not easy (no business is easy to run).
- Fair Source tries to balance openness with financial sustainability by introducing restrictions based on type of usage. In a sense, Fair Source, maintains the spirit of open-source software while ensuring that developers are compensated for their work. It undergoes delayed open-source publication (DOSP), which is the practice of distributing or publicly deploying software under a proprietary license at first, then subsequently and in a planned manner publishing that software’s source code under an open-source license.
- This type of licensing posses challenges to the freedom, community-driven innovation, and interoperability that true open-source licensing offers from the beginning.
- Fair Code prioritizes developer compensation, often at the expense of the freedoms offered by open source. In Fair Code, the software is generally free for personal use, but commercial users must pay. This model acknowledges the reality that developing and maintaining software requires resources, and it aims to secure a steady income for developers.
- This type of licensing prioritizes developers over open-source principles which can at times be harmful to development and innovation driven by a community, as people from community are also part of the working force. In a sense, vendor lock-in can emerge and force other client companies to adhere to what a business decides its best for itself, but not necessarily for others.
I understand and respect the intentions of developers who work under different constraints and I believe that all forms of open-source software contribute positively to the software ecosystem.
However, we must also recognize that there is a spectrum of "freedom" within open source. Whenever possible, we advocate for "better" Free Software — software that adheres to the highest principles of freedom and user autonomy.
At the same time, there are a few other aspects about software that when overlooked, can make tech solutions very similar to proprietary software.
Challenge #1: Vendor lock in
Open-source software is essential, despite the challenges in securing financing, because of the protection it offers against vendor lock-in. Traditional proprietary software models, and even some open-source licenses that grant vendors excessive control, create environments where customers are at the mercy of changing conditions. Vendors can unilaterally adjust pricing, impose restrictive terms, and essentially mimic the very behaviors of proprietary models that open source was intended to counter.
True open-source licenses, such as AGPL and LGPL, protect users by ensuring that they are not trapped by these unpredictable dynamics. This lock-in protection is not just a benefit; it’s a necessity in a landscape where user autonomy and freedom (otherwise known as digital sovereignty) are paramount.
Challenge #2: Future integrations
Another reason why open source is essential is its ability to build upon and integrate with other open-source software. Many of today's software wouldn't exist if collective innovation had been limited or blocked. The "Fair Code" approach, while well-intentioned, falls short in this regard. It restricts the freedom to fully leverage and contribute to the broader ecosystem of open-source software and limits further development.
At XWiki, we remain committed to the open-source principles that preserve the collaborative and innovative spirit and freedom essential for free software.
Challenge #3: Pleasing investors
One of the most significant challenges in the software world, is the playbook of VC based companies, which is to lure customers with initial freebies, in order to build a large customer based, only to lock them in and "milk the cow" later. This has been unfortunately a very common strategy among VC based companies, including some that started with open-source at the beginning.
However, sustainable software development is possible without relying on venture capital investments.
Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) can build successful, sustainable businesses by focusing on delivering value through hard work, genuine customer relationships, and honest communication honestly about project needs rather than using subversive tactics.
Solutions for financing open source
The best solution for financing open-source software is to find the right commercialization model that allows a business to maintain its open-source core while also securing funding. After 20 years of running XWiki SAS, I can confidently say that this model is possible and not just a fairy tale. Now it might be more difficult depending on the type of software being built, and it might also be difficult at the beginning to allow to reach critical mass.
During the early periods or for types of software where building a "product business model" is difficult, there are also alternate solutions through global or regional donation platforms and grants which primary scope is to support free software development. A few such examples that you can explore are:
- Copie Publique — An approach that helps financing through annual donations based on annual recurring revenue;
- NGI Initiative — Part of the EU's Horizon 2020 program, and it provides funding to projects that contribute to a more open, interoperable, and user-centric internet.
- NLnet Foundation — Funds open-source projects aimed at improving the internet and its infrastructure, particularly for privacy, security, and public digital infrastructure.
- OpenCollective — A platform that enables open-source communities and projects to raise, manage, and distribute funds transparently.
- Horizon Europe Program (European Commission) — A research and innovation program that supports creating and better dispersing of excellent knowledge and technologies.
Moving forward
While we recognize the challenges and respect the diverse approaches within the open-source community, we believe that the future of software lies in maintaining the freedoms that open source provides.
By focusing on licenses that prevent lock-in, such as AGPL and LGPL, fostering collaborative innovation, and exploring donation options and sustainable financing models, we can ensure that open source remains not just viable, but also relevant and financially sustainable.
If you want to see articles like this delivered to your inbox once per month, subscribe to our newsletter.
