Improve AGPL and Qt discussion details

dosp-survey.ltx

@@ -158,8 +158,6 @@ that their market of commercial, embedded developers were paying to avoid the
 A/GPL, and that the time-delay did not significantly change these companies'
 incentives to pay for licenses.\footnote{CITE to Rosen's book?}
 
-
-
 % Rosen also says that sendmail may have had a dual license in the same
 % era or even before Ghostscript.  I found references to sendmail having
 % a ``traditional'' dual license but so far have not found references to a
@@ -184,19 +182,33 @@ release.\footnote{See \textit{id.}, which includes the exact language of the
 licensors' contractual commitments; a portion of the historical context is also
 described in \otsurl{https://tinf2.vub.ac.be/$\sim$dvermeir/manual/KDE20Development-html/ch19lev1sec4.html}.}
 
-In practice, we didn't find any documentary evidence of significant time
-delay.  That is, while the agreements allow a lag between proprietary release
-and FOSS (or Qt/Free license) release, it appears that in practice this lag has
-been insignificant or non-existent.\footnote{CITE? TODO: maybe we can ask the KDE
-folks if this is true?}  The agreements established minimal standards for the
-protection of KDE, but Qt's various copyright holders appear to have generally
-exceeded those standards.  In this case, DOSP was a fall-back scenario for a
-conditions that never arose.
-
-KDE and GhostScript are the two earliest projects we found making documented use
-of DOSP.  They use them in different ways, but both appear to contemplate DOSP
-as a way to protect a period of proprietary commercial exploitation.  As we will
-see from later projects, this is the most common use of DOSP. 
+The Qt licensors did maintain separate ``Qt Commercial Edition" and ``Qt
+Open Source Edition" releases for some time; the latter complied with
+the licensors' commitments under the agreements. We haven't identified
+evidence of a significant gap in time or functionality between these
+releases, although such gaps may have existed.  The agreements established
+minimal standards for the protection of KDE, but Qt's various copyright
+holders appear to have generally exceeded those standards.  In this
+case, DOSP was a fall-back scenario for two different conditions that didn't
+arise in practice (unreasonably delayed open source releases, or
+complete discontinuation of upstream development).
+It appears that Qt licensors usually understood their commercial strategy
+as akin to a more conventional dual license, where proprietary adopters
+would pay for the Commercial Edition in order not to incur copyleft
+obligations. Making generalizations about this strategy is complicated,
+as several different commercial entities acquired Qt over time and may
+have had somewhat different understandings.
+
+Today, all of Qt is released simultaneously under LGPL/GPL and proprietary
+dual licenses.\footnote{The Qt Group states that there is currently one
+exception where it doesn't have the right to grant a proprietary license
+for a specific module:
+\quote{A few modules in Qt, however, use code from 3rd party open source projects such as the Qt WebEngine is using the Chromiu[m] project licensed under LGPLv2.1. So when using these modules, you will need to fulfill the corresponding license obligations, in case of Chromium the LGPLv2.1.}. See \otsurl{https://www.qt.io/download-open-source}.}
+
+GhostScript and Qt are the two earliest projects we found making
+documented use of DOSP.  They use them in different ways, but both relate
+in a broad sense to attempts to protect a licensor's commercial interests.
+As we will see from later projects, this is the most common use of DOSP.
 
 \numberedsection{Scheduled Relicensing}\label{scheduled}
 
@@ -544,14 +556,6 @@ rather than adding it as an optional additional permission.
 
 % TODO: double-check whether any of the others were time-limited
 
-% I think it's interesting that the AGPL doesn't seem to appeal to most
-% companies that are pursuing this kind of thing. I don't know if any of
-% them have commented on their views about it.
-
-% TODO (from Karl on 2023-11-07): It's worth raising the question of
-% why more companies don't just choose AGPL instead of resorting to
-% BUSL?  E.g., https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38162275
-
 \numberedsection{``Grace Period'' Reciprocal Licensing}\label{grace}
 % TODO: This can go as a subsection of the ``differences from
 %       other licensing strategies'' section?
@@ -709,8 +713,12 @@ collapse down to a dual-licensing scheme with proprietary and A/GPL options.
 \begin{itemize}
 	\item DOSP versus AGPL licensing.
 
- The GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL) arguably aims to address
- some of the same concerns as the BUSL or the FSL --- particularly
+% Sample discussion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38162275 but
+% it isn't the only one. But we plausibly don't necessarily need to point
+% to specific discussions.
+ The GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL)\footnote{See
+ \otsurl{https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html}.} arguably aims to
+ address some of the same concerns as the BUSL or the FSL --- particularly
  concerns about some forms of free-riding by downstream adopters. Instead
  of forbidding commercial (or competitive) uses, the AGPL imposes a
  copyleft-like requirement to publicly disclose and publicly license the