[talldayo]

I think you're also looking at it from the wrong direction. Communities exist around software because they perceive collective ownership of the program. If you don't want contributions then that's fine, but you're certainly not attracting new audiences by showing current customers your source code. It's marketing, plain and simple. Spending money on marketing is fine, but don't expect developers to not call you out on the advertisement.

The positioning of "fair source" as a middle-ground between business and community is an industry-wide joke. Do it to assuage your paranoid customers or whatever, but don't convince yourself for a second that you're putting the community before yourself.

[ezekg]

> don't convince yourself for a second that you're putting the community before yourself.

In some ways, I'm putting the sustainability of my business above user freedom, yes, but in other ways I put user freedom above sustainability by making the source code available to read, use, modify, and redistribute for nearly any use case. There's nothing inherently "wrong" with this either. The space between open source and closed source can be a gradient; it doesn't have to be strictly black and white. Open Source is different, yes, but that doesn't mean that people can't benefit from my software being Fair Source while I build a sustainable business. I can value building a sustainable business and providing user freedom at the same time. That's the whole point of Fair Source -- both are possible.

I think you're looking at it from the wrong direction.