[thedevilslawyer]

Fake "Open source" all over again.. why do we repeatedly have to do this? You can own the "Fair source" and call it that.

I was excited with the pitch. And then had this completely ruin your image. If you'd been upfront, then you could still have retained the interest.

I recommend everyone keep away from this if you care about your autonomy should your side project commercialize. There's plenty of good alternatives. The intent seems dishonest - given how brazenly every comment about the license is exclusively being ignored.

[engomez]

We aim to be upfront with the fair-code approach by detailing that in the post, docs, etc. Our goal is to allow for broad usage for folks using it for building assistants, copilots, workflows, etc., while protecting against direct competitive use of the platform. This helps us guarantee we can continue to innovate.

[mips_avatar]

You're "source available" don't call something open source when it's not

[JimDabell]

You aren’t being upfront if you are calling it open source. Fair code is not open source.