We are indeed trying to define it but this was a response to "implies some sense of 'fairness' which can mean drastically different things to people". It has a clear definition, but the interpretation and the consequence on that definition are in relation to a business. I don't think however that is any different to how the consequences of an Open Source license are specific to the license or the company that runs it. A GPL software with a CLA is very different than a GPL software without a CLA.
> Which, I suppose, is a roundabout way of saying: “fair” to whom?
The goal of the FSL is to ensure that you have aligned incentives as a company with all the users that you have, and you protect yourself against free loaders.
I wrote down my thoughts on a longer version a while back here: https://lucumr.pocoo.org/2024/9/23/fsl-agpl-open-source-busi...
I do want to see a proper definition which could be explained better legally.
But the idea is pretty good in my opinion (unless you are one of those people who want open source to be free labour for your company)
My discomfort—setting aside whether such an idea is workable in license form—is mainly with the choice of a moralizing descriptor for such a license.
What is clear about “with minimal restrictions to protect the producer’s business model”? Don’t business models change over time? Doesn’t this suggest that if I were to stake my venture on such a “fair” element of software, it would be fine unless I turned out to succeed, in which case the producer could rightfully box me out (or, more likely, extort a ransom)?
Which, I suppose, is a roundabout way of saying: “fair” to whom? Such an “author-first source-available” license may well prevent the specific unfairness of AWS-style snarfage, but would seem to open the door to different kinds of unfairness years down the line. The absolutism of the OSS “zealots” seems much clearer, even with all its tradeoffs.