WIP Start edits toward final form

This change, and others from me immediately following it, are part of
one long editing pass to get this report into final form (while Seth
is resolving any still-unresolved citations).  There's no point in
trying to write a detailed log message for each commit, since the
commits are just checkpoints anyway; the best way to know what
happened is to just look at the diff.

dosp-survey.ltx

@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ draft: true
 \BLOCK{block body}
 
 \begin{center}
-  Seth Schoen, Karl Fogel, James Vasile
+  Seth Schoen, James Vasile, Karl Fogel
 \end{center}
 
 \renewcommand*{\contentsname}{} % Get rid of "Contents" from top of TOC
@@ -51,23 +51,13 @@ license.\footnote{Note that this definition deliberately does not
 Software producers have practiced DOSP throughout the history of Open
 Source software.  This document is a selective survey of that history.
 It collects and categorizes sample products and tries to identify some
-trends.
+patterns and trends.
 
-\emph{TBD: Everything from this point on is tentative, still a work in
-  progress, etc.  Please do not consider anything below to reflect the
-  final opinions of the authors, and please do not quote from this
-  draft in public forums.  While we prefer to work in the open, that
-  doesn't mean we want to engage with strangers' comments on an
-  incomplete analysis.}
-
-The most important trends we found are:
+We categorized the examples of DOSP that we found into three overall
+types:
 
 \begin{itemize}
 
-  \item The rise of the Business Source License (BUSL).
-
-    Use of BUSL is growing rapidly.  See Section \ref{busl}.
-
   \item Unconditional scheduled relicensing.
 
     Planned OSS releases with just a pre-defined time delay.  See
@@ -76,26 +66,57 @@ The most important trends we found are:
   \item Event-driven relicensing.
 
     OSS publication happens regularly, but is driven each time by some
-    regular event, e.g., the publication of the latest proprietary
+    expected event, e.g., the publication of the latest proprietary
     version, which prompts the previous version to now be open
-    sourced.
+    sourced.  See Section \ref{TBD-event-driven}
 
   \item Conditional relicensing.
 
     ``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.
-    This probably includes bounty mechanisms, but only if they were
-    intended --- that is, it does not include ``buy-outs''.
+    This can include bounty mechanisms, but only if they were planned
+    --- that is, it does not include ``buy-outs''.
 
-    \emph{James thinks this may not quite be DOSP in the sense we
-      usually mean, although it's a category that quite a few people
-      wrote in about.}
+    This type is probably the weakest match for our working definition
+    of DOSP, though it is technically a match.  Unsurprisingly, stated
+    intentions to release under Open Source license do not always
+    result in that actually happening.  Still, when it does happen,
+    it is an instance of DOSP.
 
-  \item TBD: Discussion of contribution/participation patterns in DOSP
-    projects versus in Open-Source-from-the-start projects.
+\end{itemize}
+
+We also saw two trends that seemed significant:
+
+\begin{itemize}
+
+  \item The rise of the Business Source License (BUSL).
+
+    Use of BUSL is growing rapidly.  See Section \ref{busl}.
+
+  \item Anti-competitive terms are becoming more common.
+
+    Traditional DOSP was typically about monopolizing direct
+    commercial revenue: the license would grant most of the
+    permissions necessary for Open Source but, crucially, withold
+    permission to use the software commercially\footnote{This causes
+      the license to fail clause 6, ``No Discrimination Against Fields
+      of Endeavor'', in the Open Source Definition (see
+      \otsurl{https://opensource.org/definition-annotated/}).} --- a
+    restriction that would apply to all downstream licensees, i.e., to
+    users, not merely to developers.
+
+    More recently, however, some DOSP licenses are about preventing
+    any licensee from using the software in a product that competes
+    with certain specific types of software that are strategically
+    important to the licensor, regardless of revenue.  See Section
+    \ref{TBD-competition}.
 
 \end{itemize}
 
+Finally, TODO: mention \ref{future} here, especially the ``what are
+the development dynamics'' question, but look over the other questions
+too to see what to highlight.
+
 Just as Open Source gradually shook out into a handful of licenses that are
 used by the vast majority of projects, we might be seeing a
 convergence toward a recognizable and relatively small set of DOSP
@@ -675,7 +696,7 @@ read recent research. The license terms applied at the expiration of these
 embargo periods permit the public to read articles at no charge, but
 may or may not be equivalent to Open Source licensing.
 
-\numberedsection{Conclusions}\label{future}
+\numberedsection{Conclusions}\label{conclusions}
 
 DOSP has been in use since the early days of Open
 Source.\footnote{Some of that period occurred before the term ``Open
@@ -697,7 +718,12 @@ collapse down to a dual-licensing scheme with proprietary and A/GPL options.
 \numberedsection{Future Research Questions}\label{future}
 
 \begin{itemize}
-	\item DOSP versus AGPL licensing.
+
+  \item TODO: Most important thing: Discussion of
+    contribution/participation patterns in DOSP projects versus in
+    Open-Source-from-the-start projects.
+
+  \item DOSP versus AGPL licensing.
 
 % 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