From 7bfa5880acc2b3ef72c14ad91155e5cabeed572b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Seth Schoen <schoen@loyalty.org>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2023 09:34:23 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] Add material on Sentry's draft FSL
---
dosp-survey.ltx | 19 ++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/dosp-survey.ltx b/dosp-survey.ltx
index 3ed4303..2185a96 100644
--- a/dosp-survey.ltx
+++ b/dosp-survey.ltx
@@ -216,7 +216,24 @@ This is echoed in statements by several BUSL adopters that they sought a way to
\subsection{Other}
-We will mention FSL here.
+Sentry has released a draft of its ``Functional Source License" (FSL),
+which it hopes to use for its own currently BUSL-licensed software, at
+\otsurl{https://fsl.software/}.\footnote{Disclosure:
+% TODO: What is the right phrasing for the disclosure here?
+}
+The FSL prohibits, during a period of one year, uses of covered software
+to provide services that ``compete" with the original developer's commercial
+service offerings. Following this period, the software is licensed under
+BSD or Apache terms, without the competition restriction.
+
+Several cloud-oriented software projects that switched away from open
+source licensing in the past few years also adopted license terms with
+non-competition clauses. However, these generally were not time-limited.
+% TODO: double-check whether any of them 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.
\numberedsection{Enforceability}\label{enforce}
--
GitLab