One way of making software more fair is by allowing developers to profit. Many companies today invest resources into taking an existing project and copying the ongoing work of the project creators; afterwards, creating and maintaining a hosted version using their code. In a fair circumstance, should they benefit from using the software, they could add certain features, fix bugs and support the community of users enjoying the product. In many cases they do, but fair-code ensures that this can happen by bringing businesses to the negotiation table when it comes to commercializing software.

This is bullshit when only a set of developers are allowed to profit. Every single project with a non-commercial license I know has an exception for the company that owns the repo. At that point external contributions are not open or fair anything, it's a company stealing labour.

Either licenses are symmetrical or they are inherently unfair, and calling it Fair is doublespeak.

They're getting it from the facts. 😄

The question is, where are you getting the "fair" moniker from? Who is it fair for? What makes it so much more fair than the other "models" that it's the only one that deserves to be called that?