From how I read the Fair Souce manifesto on their site, the company is allowed to accept and benefit patches made by dogooder developers, but those developers are not allowed to make any changes that impede on the "producer's business model", which implies that hard forks would actually be prohibited. So it's actually worse. You're allowed to do free labor for the company, and nothing/no one else.
Allowed? Sure. Expected to? Nope. I put it this way in the FAQ:
> Developers can propose modifications back to the producer if they wish, or simply benefit from the company's continual investment in maintenance and improvement.
That said, for me personally (taking my Sentry hat off for a second), I think the most interesting future is one in which companies use Fair Source licensing _and_ open hiring/twyw compensation:
I would do this if it benefited my company. It’s almost always easier in the long run to fix something upstream than to have to maintain a downstream fork.
Any patch that I make to a third party dependency increases the risk of upgrading the dependency. Any change they take from us benefits us in the long term, and benefits the industry as a whole.
I'll be honest, that doesn't sound nice.
It sounds like a way for corporations to skirt employment law,
similar to other gig economy companies.
Do not want.
