Newer
Older
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
---
title: "Delayed Open Source Publication:\\\\A Survey of Past and Current Practices"
date: TBD Nov 2023
draft: true
---
%% extends "report.ltx"
\BLOCK{block preamble}
\BLOCK{endblock}
\BLOCK{block body}
\begin{center}
Seth Schoen, Karl Fogel, James Vasile
\end{center}
\renewcommand*{\contentsname}{} % Get rid of "Contents" from top of TOC
\tableofcontents
\addtocontents{toc}{\protect\thispagestyle{empty}} % no page numbers
\setcounter{page}{1}
\newpage
\numberedsection{Executive Summary}\label{executive-summary}
\otsfirstterm{Delayed Open Source Publication} (DOSP) is the practice
of distributing or publicly deploying software under a proprietary
license at first, then subsequently --- and in a planned fashion ---
publishing that software release's source code under an open source
license.\footnote{Note that this definition deliberately does not
include \foreignphrase{ad hoc} or improvisatory open source releases
of formerly proprietary code. For example, the 1998 release of the
Netscape Navigator source code, which through further development
eventually became Mozilla Firefox, is \emph{not} an example of DOSP.
This report is examines the history and effects of DOSP practiced as
a conscious strategy; the effect of unplanned and unpredicted open
source publication is also an interesting topic, but a separate
one.}
Software produces have practiced DOSP throughout the history of free
and open source software.\footnote{We use the terms ``free software''
and ``open source software'' synonymously throughout this report.}
However, surveying this phenomenon at a high level, from its
beginnings through today, shows some clear trends:
\emph{TBD: Everything below is tentative, draft, still a
work-in-progress, etc. Feel free to read and comment, but please do
not consider anything from this point on to reflect the settled
opinions of the authors nor of any organizations.}
\begin{itemize}
\item The rise of the Business Source License (BUSL).
Use of BUSL is really taking off.
Deserves its own section --- see Section \ref{busl}.
\item Delayed unconditional release.
Planned OSS releases with just a pre-defined time delay.
\item Delayed event-driven regular release.
OSS publication happens regularly, but is driven each time by some
regular event (e.g., the publication of the latest proprietary
version, which prompts the previous version to now be open
sourced).
\item Delayed conditional release.
"We'll publish this as open source as soon as we get funding" or
"as soon as we find the right non-profit home for it", etc.
\end{itemize}
There are also post-hoc or unscheduled releases, where the authors
didn't originally plan to release the software as open source but
eventually decide to do so. These aren't technically in scope, but we
should give some examples somewhere --- maybe in a footnote or
appendix --- just to make it clear that it's something that happens.
\numberedsection{The Business Source License (BUSL)}\label{busl}
TBD Include BUSL's precursors here, e.g., TGPPL, maybe others?
How long are the delay periods typically?
What are the eventual OSS "destination" licenses are?
See also the CC report about springing licenses (\ref{sources}).
\numberedsection{Some Section}\label{some-section}
TBD
\subsection{Some Subsection}\label{some-subsection}
TBD
\numberedsection{Sources and References}\label{sources}
\begin{itemize}
\item \otscite{Creative Commons Final Report: On the Viability and
Development of Springing Licenses}\\
\otsurl{https://creativecommons.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Springing-licenses-FINAL.pdf}
\end{itemize}
\numberedsection{Acknowledgements}\label{acknowledgements-sow}
TBD
\BLOCK{endblock}