[koolba]

From the link to the license:

> Fair Source has the power to promote diversity within the developer community. To date, contributing to open source has been an expensive proposition for developers. You have to have a stable income and a lot of extra time to work on side projects for free, which means talented developers from underprivileged backgrounds often aren’t able to contribute. Fair Source allows developers to monetize their side projects, which means more people can afford to join the ranks of developers who pursue these initiatives.

I find it funny that some people feel a need to justify charging money for something by coming up with bogus social justice rationalizations.

[actuallyalys]

I agree that people don't need a justification to charge money, but the rationale isn't bogus—it is hard to contribute without a stable income, underrepresented groups in tech tend to make less money in general, and getting paid could help that.

I'm not sure this license is the way to go, though. Unusual licenses tend to turn people off, and it's not clear how profits from this license would go to contributors.

[_jal]

Completely disagree that the reasoning is bogus.

I object to the name. It is clearly an attempt rebrand proprietary licensing by capitalizing on associations with open source. Trademark law of course doesn't apply, and I wouldn't want it to if it did, but this is pretty much the definition of causing confusion in the marketplace.