Show status of various projects in notes.md

notes.md

@@ -49,13 +49,13 @@ need followup.
   (See also https://github.com/zooko/tgppl -- note that Richard
   Fontana is in the commit history there.)
 
-* [Atom (text editor)](https://atom-editor.cc/blog/2014/05/06/atom-is-now-open-source/)
+* ONE-OFF [Atom (text editor)](https://atom-editor.cc/blog/2014/05/06/atom-is-now-open-source/)
 
   (suggested by @Zaeraxa in reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37745772)
 
   Probably not DOSP: Apparently had no license at all prior to this.
 
-* BerkeleyDB and Sleepycat?
+* NOT DOSP BerkeleyDB and Sleepycat?
 
   Probably not DOSP: simultaneous dual license.
 
@@ -63,13 +63,13 @@ need followup.
 
   Have not found any reference to licensing so far.
 
-* [Ghostty](https://mitchellh.com/ghostty)
+* ONE-OFF [Ghostty](https://mitchellh.com/ghostty)
 
   (suggested by @Zaeraxa in reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37745772)
 
   "A private project. I plan to open source it one day"
 
-* Modular/Mojo (a highly-anticipated project from Chris Lattner
+* ONE-OFF Modular/Mojo (a highly-anticipated project from Chris Lattner
   (creator of LLVM, Swift, and XLA/TensorFlow).
 
   Possibly an example based on code quality and similar concerns,
@@ -91,15 +91,20 @@ need followup.
   their way of operating probably warrants mention in the Appendix, as
   people interested in DOSP would also want to know about this.
 
-* MkDocs
+* UNCLEAR MkDocs
 
   I haven't found any delayed licensing information.
 
-* Onivim 2 (was this unplanned?) [issue](https://github.com/onivim/oni2/issues/3771)
+* ONE-OFF Onivim 2 [issue](https://github.com/onivim/oni2/issues/3771)
   see also https://v2.onivim.io/early-access-portal and
   https://github.com/onivim/oni2/issues/3811#issuecomment-910306404 for additional
   history
 
+  There was an early-access sponsorship system but there was never a
+  public commitment to relicense the code under an open source license.
+  The developer later stopped working on the project and then relicensed
+  it as MIT in its entirety.
+
 * Android (Google's eventual publication of changes to AOSP)
 
   If Google has typically been pretty regular about releasing stuff to
@@ -113,20 +118,11 @@ need followup.
 
   Cf. the situation with video game development, as Seth noted.
 
-* OPSI ["co-funding"](https://www.opsi.org/de/dokumentation/opsi-lizenz-und-copyright) (see also [this forum link](https://forum.opsi.org/viewtopic.php?t=1193))
-
-  They have clearly used a form of delayed open source release in the past in
-  connection with a bounty-like co-funding mechanism, which is still alluded
-  to on the company's web site.  However, it's not clear that this model is
-  actively used anymore for the majority of development (if at all), as most
-  of the code appears to be under an open core model with a subscription model
-  for proprietary extensions.
-
 * [OTRS](https://www.znuny.org/en/blog/why) (open source -> delayed ->
   proprietary), but one person said that the announced delayed open release
   never actually happened.
 
-* Pixelfed ["will be open sourced when we reach v1"](https://pixelfed.org/mobile-apps)
+* ONE-OFF Pixelfed ["will be open sourced when we reach v1"](https://pixelfed.org/mobile-apps)
 
 * Qt (officially delayed releases in the past from Trolltech?)
 
@@ -136,21 +132,10 @@ need followup.
 
   https://searchcodeserver.com/knowledge-base/eventually-open.html
 
-* [Zed](https://zed.dev/blog/open-sourcing-zed-on-zed)
+* UNCLEAR [Zed](https://zed.dev/blog/open-sourcing-zed-on-zed)
 
   (suggested by @Zaeraxa in reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37745772)
 
-# Not software
-
-* Rockefeller University Press Journal of Cell Biology has a delayed
-  open access policy with delayed relicensing of academic journal articles
-  (although the end license is a noncommercial Creative Commons license
-  so it would not be considered open source)
-
-* Maybe there are other examples of delayed open access in journals with
-  formal relicensing that would be considered fully open source (if the
-  articles were software)?
-
 # An annoying nomenclature problem
 
 Even though we seem to think that the Business Source License should be