Add more details from e-mail contributors

notes.md

@@ -87,13 +87,23 @@ obvious.  I think that's clear for SLYR at least."
 edit: I see North Road is actually on your list, but eventual openness not obvious. I think that's clear for SLYR at least
 
 * Onivim 2 (was this unplanned?) [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
 
 * OPSI ["co-funding"](https://www.opsi.org/de/dokumentation/opsi-lizenz-und-copyright https://forum.opsi.org/viewtopic.php?t=1193)
 
-* OTRS (open source -> delayed -> proprietary)
+* [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)
 
+* [PKMN Classic Framework](https://github.com/mm201/pkmn-classic-framework)
+  (a reverse-engineered third-party Pokémon game server?) has a conditional
+  relicensing if the developer's official server instance goes offline in
+  the future
+
 * Qt (officially delayed releases in the past??)
 
 * The post [GPL Time-bomb an interesting approach to #FOSS
@@ -101,6 +111,20 @@ edit: I see North Road is actually on your list, but eventual openness not obvio
   by Ben Boyter mentions "searchcode" server being under an
   "eventually open" license.
 
+* Old games and libraries from [id Software](https://github.com/id-Software),
+  but was this planned or announced?
+
+# 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

unscheduled.md

@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ Other examples shared with us that seem to have been "unscheduled":
 * Kallisto
 * MS-DOS early versions (!!)
 * UNIX (the original one from Bell Labs)
+* TUIPEER
 
 Maybe more ambiguous cases:
 
@@ -26,3 +27,10 @@ Maybe more ambiguous cases:
   their main commercial viability, but not on a schedule and not with a
   public commitment to do so?)
 * Ghidra (classified government internal software to declassified open source)
+
+# Not sure
+
+* Aleph-Alpha has a demo as open source but proprietary licensing for the
+  official product? https://github.com/Aleph-Alpha/magma
+* XCP-ng is just a fork of an older codebase after a proprietary
+  upstream relicensing?